ANC 6D
Minutes
65 I Street SE
Present: Commissioners Assalaam, Litsky, Moffatt,
Siegel, Skolnik, Sobelsohn, Williams
The meeting was convened at
7:10 pm
1.
Agenda
Commissioner Litsky said
that candidates would be coming to the meeting to address the community prior
to the November election, and those candidates at the ward level and higher
should be given two minutes to address the body after discussion of any item
under consideration is completed.
Commissioner Assalaam objected because there was not going to be a
candidate’s forum for ANC representatives as there had been in the past, and
this would be biased on one side.
Commissioner Williams said it should be put to the end of the agenda.
2.
Minutes
Commissioner Assalaam
objected to the language of his motion on the Capitol Gateway Overlay Amendment
and said it wasn’t correct. Motion: Commissioner Assalaam moved
that discussion of the minutes be moved to the end of the meeting. Commissioner Litsky asked Commissioner
Assalaam for the correct wording for his motion, to be amended to the September
minutes. Motion: Commissioner
Moffatt moved acceptance of the September minutes, as amended. It was seconded by Commissioner Siegel and passed 5-2, with Commissioners Assalaam and
Williams in opposition.
3.
Community Comment
Ed Johnson spoke in support
of PL16-902, legislation which is on the ANC’s agenda, which would mandate
negotiations between NCRC and AWC on transfer of the NCRC-controlled land at
the waterfront.
Gene Solon spoke about the unacceptability of the Waterfront project design, and again stressed the urgent need for a traffic study for the area.
4.
Old Business
Square 701
Commissioner Siegel said
that the ANC had received an offer from developers to contribute $95,000 to a
fund for community benefits in support of alley closings for a matter-of-right
mixed use, residential, office and retail project in Square 701, bounded by M,
N, 1st and Half Streets in his SMD.
Motion: Mr. Siegel moved that the ANC support the alley closing in
Square 701, with the proviso that $95,000 is given to the community for
benefits to be determined. It was
seconded by Commissioner Sobelsohn.
Commissioner Williams said
that Commissioner Siegel should not misrepresent what the community will
receive and that the 750 sq. ft. that the developer says the alley comprises is
worth close to $2 million, and $95,000 does not begin to compensate the
community for what the land is worth.
Commissioner Assalaam asked about the community fund into which the
money will be paid. He said the ANC was
selling out the future for the children of the community.
Commissioner Assalaam said
that too much responsibility was being given to the committee, and it was the
role of the ANC to develop a procedure for dealing with alley closings, because
the Commissioners know the City, and then pass it on to the Committee.
Mr. Solon said he was
surprised at Commissioner Siegel, and believed that further negotiation was
supposed to take place. He said that
given Ms. William’s calculation of $2 million, the community should get more
than $95,000.
The motion to support the alley closings was passed
4-3, with Commissioners Assalaam, Skolnik and Williams voting in opposition.
(Commissioner Litsky called
on Tommy Wells, candidate for Ward 6 Council, to speak. Commissioner Williams
reiterated that candidates should speak at the end of the meeting). Mr. Wells spoke about the Waterfront
development, and tenants’ rights. He
then called on Will Cobb, who discussed his platform of improving schools, better
public safety and affordable housing.)
NCRC/Waterfront
Associates LDDA
Commissioner Litsky said
that the Commissioners, in order, should ask questions and make comments.
Commissioner Assalaam began
by saying that there were no community benefits, that what was being offered,
like affordable housing, was mandated by the zoning regulations. He said they would be tearing down trees and
taking land from people who live in Southwest.
He said the mall was originally supposed
to be a town center, and it still won’t be for the people who live here. He voiced his objection on behalf of the
children in the neighborhood. He also
said that he didn’t appreciate the threats being made that
state that if the land transfer didn’t occur there was the possibility that the
land would just sit there and nothing would be built.
Commissioner Williams asked
about extinguishing the lease for 584,656 sq. ft., as a 70-year lease worth $5
million for 100% of the land, but NCRC would retain a portion of the land for a
significant financial advantage.
Jennifer Budoff, representing NCRC, responded that NCRC owns the land,
but Waterfront Associates owns the buildings and controls the development
rights. The lease is currently worth
$4-5 million, but the 58,200 sq. ft. that NCRC would keep will be worth $22-30
million, as projected by an analysis of comparable sales in the areas. She said that existing encumbrances would no
longer be on the land, which would go to RLARC and transferred to a LLC
(limited liability corporation). She
then asked what would happen if the development did not move forward, and Randy
Kenna, counsel at NCRC, said that the agreement has default provisions. If Waterfront Associates do not invest $50
million cash, NCRC gets the land back.
All the money will be invested—the project will cost $750 million. It will all be invested by 2014, at which
time the residential and retail will be built.
Ms. Williams said she wants to see the construction deadlines.
In answer to another
question, Ms. Budoff said that Waterfront Associates have to comply with the
PUD, and NCRC will enforce the provisions of the PUD.
Mr. Skolnik asked what the
worst case scenario would be, and Ms. Budoff responded that it would be
non-compliance with the PUD. He then
asked about the affordable housing provisions of the agreement. Ms. Budoff said
there were two scenarios: in the first phase of the development, Waterfront
Associates will build all its affordable housing below 80% of AMI; in the
second scenario, Waterfront Associates may develop the housing as workforce
housing, and NCRC would develop lower income housing on the RLARC site. David Smith, of Forest City Washington, said
that it would still be within the Waterfront parcel. In answer to a question,
Ms. Budoff said that there is a 20-year expiration for the affordable rental
housing provisions, and a ten-year expiration on home ownership.
Mr. Litsky asked why the
District is paying for the pre-apprenticeship program described in the
agreement. Ms. Budoff said that RLARC
is paying for it out of program funds, and would be taking care of the training
costs. Waterfront Associates will be
hiring the graduates and paying their salaries.
He then asked about the
grocery store, and why, if they want to build out a 55,000 sq. ft. space for
Safeway, there is the provision that they don’t have to have a grocery after
Safeway’s lease expires. He was told
again that they are hopeful of working out a deal with Safeway.
He then asked about 4th
Street and what the plans for the Federal park behind the Mall are. He was told that the park is part of a
Federal land transfer bill awaiting Senate action, and the District is moving
ahead on the assumption that it will pass.
They will have 90% drawings in one month. Waterfront Associates could not commit to opening the road, it
requires Council action and they have no ability to put the road through the
part. Alternative access would be
through Wesley Place.
Mr. Smith said that they are
submitting the PUD in November, and that will take about a year, and that
construction could start in 2009, or early 2010, the latest being the end of
2010. They would be available as
affordable units until 2024, if the building had a certificate of occupancy by
2014.
In answer to a question
about providing office space and community meeting space, Ms. Budoff said that
a letter had been sent to the ANC saying that they agreed to provide that
space, and that the ANC and SWNA should let Waterfront Associates know what
their needs are.
Commissioner Moffatt asked
about the true value of the land, and was told that there was about $198-270
million worth of land. He also asked
about how dependent the land transfer was on the PUD. Ms. Budoff was working on the agreement now, but the land
transfer won’t take place until after demolition and construction takes
place. He then asked whether it was
possible to get a commitment on a grocery, and mentioned the amount of
residential development that is going on in the immediate area, including the
St. Matthews site. Ms. Budoff said it
is an issue that can be decided by the Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Siegel said
that his impression was that Mr. Bressler, a partner in the development, has
been a bad landlord in the way managed the land and treated the tenants. He asked what guarantee that the property
will not be mismanaged again. Mr. Smith
responded that Mr. Bressler is part of a partnership and that Forest City has
always been a good landlord.
Commissioner Williams said
that the value of the lease was $17 million in 2001, and the extended lease is
worth $2-4 million. Ms. Budoff said the
$17 million was offered as compensation for extinguishing the lease under the
Fannie Mae deal. Mr. Smith added that
the $17 million was for the entire site. Commissioner Williams responded that
it’s a good d deal for Waterfront Associates, but not a good deal for the
taxpayers.
In answer to a question
about what percentage will the LLC and management company be paid, Ms. Budoff
responded that she doesn’t know, but it will be competitively bid. She said that Waterfront has the right to
develop right now, and NCRC doesn’t have control over what they do. In 2002 and 2003 provisions were put in
their lease requiring them to do development.
The LDDA says it has to be done in 20 years.
Commissioner Skolnik asked
about what would happen if they default, and Ms. Budoff said there can be a
termination of the agreement.
Commissioner Litsky asked
about whether there is anything in the agreement that refers to eminent
domain. Mr. Kenna said there is
boilerplate dealing with the issue, but no specifics. Mr. Litsky responded that NCR is compensated and gets the land
free if there’s a default. If there’s a
transfer and it’s not build on, and the City chooses to take the land, what
happens. Mr. Kenna said such an
occurrence would proceed under contract law, not eminent domain.
Commissioner Litsky then
commented on the fact that the sign at the Mall says that there will be 125,000
sq. ft. of retail space, now it’s down to 75,000 sq. ft. including the
supermarket. He reiterated that there
just is not enough retail space. He then asked what would happen if the LDDA
and the PUD do not conform, and was told that they have to conform.
A community member asked
about LEED certification, and how green the development would be. Mr. Smith responded that they had an
environmental consultant and they were looking at LEED certification. Another questioner asked whether, if
taxpayers owned the land, why it is being given away. And if a grocer store is necessary to the community, NCRC is not
acting in behalf of the community. Ms.
Budoff responded that the District and the community are benefiting through new
jobs, tax benefits, and the development of undeveloped land.
Motion: Commissioner
Williams moved that the ANC oppose the extinguishing of the lease and the
transfer of land from NCRC to Waterfront Associates. It was seconded by Commissioner Skolnik, and passed 7-0.
250 M Street SE
Anthony Noble of Holland and
Knight, representing the developer, presented plans for an office building at
250 M Street SE that is part of the Capper/Carrollsburg second stage PUD, which
has already been approved. This is an
application for a Capitol Gateway Zoning Overlay design review. The building is
a joint venture with the DC Housing Authority (DCHA). The building will be located across the street from Canal Park,
will have 194 parking spaces, 14’ ceilings on the retail level, and will be
LEED certified. It will have a rear
service drive, and they have met with DDOT on traffic issues. Motion:
Mr. Sobelsohn moved that the issue be referred to the development
committee. The motion did not receive a
second.
Commissioner Williams asked
whether the building will generate funds for the District, and Paul Rowe of
DCHA said that most of the land was previously public housing, some of which
was sold fee simple, and the land for the building is leased to a venture
partner. DCHA has a one-third equity
interest in the building, and the annual cash flow will be used to the
construction of the one-for-one replacement units in the Capper/Carrollsburg
project. They are using the profits
from the land sales for construction.
Commissioner Assalaam asked
when DCHA became a for-profit agency, and said that they had torn down the
public housing and now the agency doesn’t have the money to put it back. Mr. Rowe said that they did have the funds,
and Commissioner Siegel said that the financing had been planned that way from
the beginning. Motion: Commissioner Siegel moved that the ANC support the design
review of 250 M Street SE because it meets the design criteria of the Capitol
Gateway Zoning Overlay. It was seconded
by Commissioner Sobelsohn. Mr. Noble
reiterated that it was not a PUD, but just a design review. The motion was defeated 3-4, with
Commissioners Assalaam, Moffatt, Skolnik and Williams voting
in opposition.
Motion on Capitol Gateway
Overlay
Commissioner Assalaam said
that his motion on the Capitol Gateway Overlay Amendment was recorded
incorrectly in the September minutes.
The correct wording should be: Commissioner
Assalaam moved that the ANC oppose the Office of Planning Amendment to the
Capitol Gateway Overlay because it includes Square 655, bounded by South
Capitol, Half, O and P Streets SW, which is the only completed residential
square in the overlay, and is exclusively occupied by a thriving community of
families and children. The ANC would
support the amendment if that square is removed from the amendment.
5.
New Business
Square 700/Square 701
Alley Closings
Amy Phillips of Monument
Realty, the site’s developer, presented information on these alley closings,
which are on the west side of the square between M, N, Half and Van Streets
SE. Monument will be building a 275,000
sq. ft. office building, 350,000 sq. ft. of residential units, and 50,000 sq.
ft. of retail. Construction will begin
in January so it will be ready when the ballpark opens. They will also be building a hotel. The
alley is 10,701 sq. ft. WMATA will get
50% of the alleys, and Monument will buy the FAR from WMATA. Square 700 will have the residential, 200
condominium units, and 200 rental. The
buildings will be LEED certified, and will have up to 20% affordable housing. The community benefits they are offering
include local and first source hiring, $500,000 contribution to air
conditioning at Amidon School, and taking responsibility for the expansion of
the Navy Yard Metro stop. The buildings
will be 120’ and 80’ feet tall, with a 12’ setback. There will be some two-story retail, and 725 parking spaces. The first Council hearing on the alley
closings is scheduled for October 31st, with the second hearing at
the end of November.
Motion: Commissioner
Sobelsohn moved that the issue of the alley closings be referred to the
Development Committee for its review, including information on whether there
will be public access to the parking spaces during non-business hours. It was
seconded by Commissioner Siegel.
Commissioner Moffatt asked
whether the planned expansion of the metro station was part of their responsibility and was told that Monument will do the construction,
with federal and WMATA funding. Phase 1
of the construction will be completed in time for the baseball stadium opening.
Commissioner Moffatt also asked about the contamination abatement. The motion was approved 6-1, with
Commissioner Assalaam in opposition.
NCRC Land Transfer to AWC
Commissioner Litsky
introduced a resolution (attached) supporting legislation currently before the
Council’s Economic Development Committee which would compel NCRC to move
forward with the transfer of land at the waterfront to AWC, so that the
redevelopment of the Southwest waterfront can move forward. He said that the
management contract for the marina has to be renewed as well, and AWC should be
doing the review of the existing contract.
The bill, he said, was written by the Attorney General’s office so there
would not be wiggle room for NCRC, which has delayed for far too long in
effecting the transfer. Motion: Commissioner Sobelsohn moved
that the ANC endorse the resolution supporting Bill #16-902. It was seconded by Commissioner Skolnik.
Commissioner Williams said
that NCRC had usurped the land and should be held responsible for negotiating
with AWC. Commissioner Skolnik said that the issue had dragged on for a long
time, and that AWC was better than NCRC, which has been dragging its feet. NCRC
has held on to the properties and allowed all the bad events to go on at the
waterfront. Commissioner Williams said
that it was important to realize that the ANC was being used as puppets, and
asked why the Commission was caught in the middle and said that the ANC should
not take action until it had someone from NCRC to talk. Commissioner Assalaam asked why it was
mandated to turn the land over to some group that snuck in to take over. The
motion passed 5-2, with Commissioners Assalaam and Williams in opposition.
Liquor License for The
Wine Cellar
Paul Pascal, attorney for
the Cho family, asked for support for a Class A liquor license for a new
high-quality liquor store at 1st and L Streets SE. It is a two story building next door to the
Marriott hotel, and the building currently has a Class B license which is in
safekeeping. They plan to tear down the
building and build a well-designed establishment that will sell fine liquors
and wines, and may have a sushi bar or a coffee bar as well. He said that they are willing to sign a
voluntary agreement, and he said that he understood that the ANC had to protect
its interest and protest the license.
Commissioner Siegel asked Mr.
Cho if he would be available to meet with the community, and said he had polled
the seniors at Arthur Capper, who said they did not want anything trashy. Mr. Pascal said the ABC was not issuing any
more B licenses that even McGruders has a Class A license, which means that the
liquor has to be locked up during the hours when selling Is prohibited. Jim Carroll of the Marriott Hotel next store
to the proposed establishment said he was concerned that it was going to be a
low-class place, but that he was feeling a little better after hearing the
presentation. Mr. Pascal said they would be happy to meet and work with the
hotel people.
Motion: Commissioner Siegel moved that the issue be referred
to the Alcoholic Beverage Committee to develop a voluntary agreement with the
owners of The Wine Cellar. It was
seconded by Commissioner Sobelsohn, and passed unanimously.
Motion:
Commissioner Siegel moved that the ANC protest the license application of the
Wine Cellar on the grounds of “peace, order and quiet” so that a voluntary
agreement can be worked out, and that Commissioner Siegel represent the ANC in
the matter. It was seconded by
Commissioner Sobelsohn and passed 7-0.
Eisenhower Memorial
Carl Reddel and Emily Nye,
of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission, and Steve Lorinze, the Memorial’s
architect, made a presentation of plans for the memorial, which will be located
on Maryland Avenue SW, on a four acre site in front of the US Department of
Education. The memorial will respect a
series of design guidelines established by the Fine Arts Commission, including
that it will be a “green:” site, that it will respect the vistas, and will
suggest the continuity of Maryland Avenue through the site.
Commissioner Skolnik asked
about the future of the community garden currently located at the site and was
told that they were looking at other reservations in the area to which it can
be moved. There were also questions
about parking, and the Commission was told that they will be creating fourteen
metered spaces, and the memorial is located near a hotel with an underutilized
garage.
6.
Treasurer’s Report
Commissioner Skolnik gave the treasurer's
report for September 11-October 16. A
copy of his report is attached to these minutes. ANC 6D has $42,821.64 in current funds. The savings account has $5,117.70, including an interest payment
of $2.52. The report includes expenses
submitted for approval of two months of staff salary $554.10 (Check #279), and
$554.10 (Check #280), Verizon, for telephone services, $87.28 (Check #281) and
$93.74 (Check #282); and Best Buy, for a printer and print cartridges $596.35
(Check #283) Motion: Commissioner Skolnik made/Commissioner
Moffatt seconded a motion to approve the June-July report and to authorize
payment of the expenses. The motion passed
6-0. (Commissioner Williams had left the meeting.)
Motion: Commissioner Skolnik moved
acceptance of the ANC budget for FY 06-07.
It was seconded by Commissioner Sobelsohn and passed 6-0.
Commissioner Skolnik reported that the ANC
had been audited by the DC Auditor and the Commission was given a “clean bill
of health,” with three minor issues: there had been no budget submitted for FY
04-05; there had been credit card purchases, which have been eliminated; and
the bank statements, which had been sent to the Treasurer’s home, are now being
sent to the office.
Commissioner Sobelsohn moved adjournment of
the meeting, which passed. The meeting
was adjourned at 10:35 pm.