Tag Archives: EMMCA

City Agencies Raise Concerns About the Hine Development – ANC Committee Forwards Hine Subcommittee Report Without Taking Position

by Larry Janezich

On Tuesday night, Chair Francis Campbell’s ANC6B Planning and Zoning Committee voted unanimously to forward recommendations on the Hine Development to the full ANC6B without recommendation.

ANC Commissioner Ivan Frishberg, Chair of the Hine Subcommittee, said that he was in “a really difficult spot” with respect to approving the recommendations, which he basically supported.  Frishberg cited a number of outstanding issues which came to light this week:

1)     An Office of Planning report which came late today, recommending design changes in the project;

2)     A Department of Housing and Economic Development letter raising concerns about the concentration of affordable housing in the project’s North Building and other concerns;

3)     A “fairly harsh” DDOT report  recommending less parking for the project, rejecting the developer’s plan for unloading 55 trucks on 7^th Street, and raising concerns about parking for affordable housing residents of the project’s North Building.

4)     The Construction Management Plan, which has not yet been submitted to the developer and which has yet to be subject to negotiation and discussion.

Frishberg argued that these issues might become more clear in the week remaining before the full ANC6B is scheduled to take up the recommendation.  “I’m not comfortable in sending these recommendations forward to the full ANC”, Frishberg stated.  Also, “In principle, the (Memorandum of Agreement) reflects the agreement we have with the developers, but it needs additional discussion.”

Hine Subcommittee Vice Chair Brian Pate pointed out that reducing the parking in accordance with DDOT recommendations would jeopardize the 50 half-cost parking spaces the developer will make available to flea market vendors on weekends.

One of the major community issues, adequate space for the weekend flea markets, appears to be on its way to resolution.  Commissioner Pate referred to a weekend market tent plan drawn up to Oheme Van Sweden Landscape Architects which would accommodate 250 tents, more than currently comprise the combined total of the weekend flea markets on the Hine site and the vendors on the plazas and sidewalks around Eastern Market.  Logistical issues and accommodating the concerns of the “brick and mortar” 7^th Street merchants need yet to be worked out, but Pate was confident they could be.

ANC6B, at a Special Call meeting which immediately preceded the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting, agreed to a resolution of support for Councilmember Tommy Wells’ Eastern Market legislation, which addressed several other flea market concerns raised by residents, vendors and the two weekend flea market managers.

EMMCA President Riehle Files Objection to Hine Timeline with Historic Preservation Office

by Larry Janezich

Today, EMMCA President Barbara Riehle sent the following letter to the staff of the Historic Preservation Office, which participates in the review of the historic preservation application for the Hine Development.  The staff will write a report to the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) on the remaining buildings for consideration.  While HPRB had originally set July 28 to hear from the developers and the community regarding the design of the 7^th Street residential building and the C Street residential building, the date for the hearing has been moved to the 4th of August.

Stanton-Eastbanc will deliver their latest drawings to the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) as previously scheduled, Thursday, July 21.  The plans go to the HPRB on Friday and will be posted on the Stanton-Eastbanc website, Hineschool.com.

The ANC has scheduled a special call meeting for Tuesday, July 26, to hear a presentation from the developers on the two buildings remaining for consideration, hear from the community, and formulate a response to the designs for submission to HPO on Wednesday, July 27.

On July 29, the HPO staff will file its report on the buildings with HPRB.

Although the hearing has been pushed back a week, the remaining aspects of the schedule have not changed, so the community will have a very limited window in which to deliver a response to HPO.  To ensure that written comments will be seen by HPRB members, those comments must be filed by July 27.  Members of the community may appear in person during the public hearing on August 4 to make a presentation without filing an advance copy of the remarks.  At the HPRB hearing on June 30, a number of supporters of the Hine project joined EMMCA and other local groups to offer testimony on the project.  For the most part, supporters of the project offered testimony on their perception of how the project would benefit the community rather than on the historic preservation aspect of the project.  To that extent, the testimony of these advocates appeared more orchestrated than spontaneous to some observers.

The letter from Barbara Riehle:

Mr. Steve Callcott and Ms. Amanda Molson

Historic Preservation Office

Dear Steve and Amanda,

The timeline for the Historic Preservation Review Board’s (HPRB) and ANC6B’s consideration of the remaining aspects of the Hine project is deeply troubling. As you know, EMMCA – Eastern Market Metro Community Association – represents more than 100 households in the neighborhood surrounding the Hine site. Ensuring that each of EMMCA’s members has an opportunity to shape EMMCA’s position on issues is an integral part of our organization, and, I believe, sets us apart from groups whose decision-making rests with a select few.

Until now, the Hine developers have been accommodating to neighbors and interested parties in terms of making plans accessible in a timely manner. Regrettably, the current timeline – even with a one week delay by HPRB – is insufficient to permit informed community input.  Much was made, in testimony before HPRB last month by individuals testifying in favor of  the current designs, about not delaying this project any more than it already has been. It is important to clarify that no delays to the project have come from community members.

In fact, the only delays that have occurred were sought by the developers and granted by the City.  Permitting adequate time for the community to review and comment on the plans, which will alter permanently the character of the neighborhood, assures the integrity of the process.

The next phase of the Hine project is the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process.  No schedule or notice for the PUD process has been provided yet, and there is no reason to believe that providing additional time now for community review will have any impact on that next phase.

All the best,

Barbara Riehle

President, EMMCA

Historic Review Board Gives Partial Approval to Hine Project – Delays Consideration of Height and Massing Issues

by Larry Janezich

HPRB met on Thursday to review Stanton Eastbanc’s Hine project and – while approving the basic site plan and the general architectural direction of the project – deferred consideration of the all-important height and massing issues until next month.  Chair Catherine Buell noted these issues are complex and will be addressed building by building.

More than a dozen residents – some representing community groups and some representing themselves – testified against aspects of the Hine project.

The two community organizations which appeared to have the most sway with the Board were ANC6B, represented by ANC Vice Chair Ivan Frishberg, and the Capitol Hill Restoration Society, represented by Shauna Holmes.  Each raised similar objections regarding height and historic compatibility, particularly with the two buildings fronting on Pennsylvania Avenue and D Street.  These objections were in opposition to the staff report of Historic Preservation Office, which looked more kindly on the two buildings.

Frishberg noted that the two buildings should be a distinctive landmark evocative of Capitol Hill and failed to achieve that.  He singled out the 8^th andD Street building in particular, saying it does not reflect character of Capitol Hill, is too tall and has an “unrelenting quality.”

Regarding the 7^th and Pennsylvania building, Holmes said, “exclamation points are fine – shouting with exclamation points is not.”  She went on to urge reconsideration of the 8^th and D building as failing to convey anything other than associations withSouthwest DC.

Holmes also urged HPRB to convene a group meeting of major stakeholders including DDOT, Office of Planning, ANC6B, EMCAC, Market Row,Barracks Row Main Street, andCHRSto provide project input and insure that the proposal is the best that can be done.

Other community organizations testifying included EMMCA, Eyes on Hine, and the 200 block of 8^th Street Coalition.  All raised concerns with the project’s height and massing.

Steve Callcott, representing the Historic Preservation Office (HPO), appeared to have become more critical of the project than the HPO staff report published last week indicated.

In his remarks to the Board, he said he was unconvinced that the design of the north residential building was appropriate for the location.  He said he was comfortable with the architectural direction of the 8^th Street residential building, suggesting only a variation in the building’s roofline.  However, Callcott went beyond the staff report on the 8^th and D Street Building, saying now that it is “very important to address the architectural direction of the building to make sure it was headed in the right direction.”  He noted that HPO had been more optimistic about the building in its report but recognized that there were clearly concerns about the height and architecture.

While recognizing the call of the ANC and CHRS for reduction in height of the 7^th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue office building, he said he stood by the HPO assessment that a taller building in this location is compatible with the character of the Historic District.  He said that a softer resolution of the issue of the appearance of the building’s height involving recessing the top floors of the building could be achieved.  Finally, he noted that the architectural direction for the 7^th Street office building and the 7^th Street residential building have “not been accomplished” and the buildings “have not achieved a sense of place yet,” and would receive further review.  He concluded that he thought the project was largely supportable but the reality is that it still needs a lot of work.

Chair Catherine Buell noted that the majority of comments and concerns raised by community groups and members could be addressed by staff as they work with the architect in light of the views of ANC6b and the CHRS.

Board Member’s reception of the community comments varied.  Board Member Christopher Landis seemed most in agreement with the ANC and CHRSreports encouraging HPO staff to work with architect and with these reports to “move in that direction.”  Chair Catherine Buell said “I’m not a fan of the 8^th and D Street building, it is too big, needs to step down, and change design.”  Also, “the building across from the north plaza needs to be rethought as well.” Board Member Pamela Scott seemed to give an uncritical endorsement of the project, saying “the entire design is a very positive addition to Capitol Hill.”

The vote to approve the basic site plan and the architectural direction was 5-0 with Chair Catherine Buell, Maria Casarella, Pamela Scott, Joseph Taylor, and Christopher Landis voting to approve.  Board Member Tersh Boasberg has recused himself from this case.

Members of the community who had testified seemed pleased that their comments appeared to be taken seriously by the Board.  One commenter characterized the feeling as “cautiously optimistic” that the effort would result in positive changes from the community’s point of view.

The concept drawings will undergo revision in the weeks ahead, and these revisions will be considered by the Board in a May meeting to address the project’s height and massing issues.  That will likely be followed by another hearing – probably in June – to review all the changes to date in the project.  Following that meeting, if the Board signs off on the project, the developer can file for Planned Unit Development status and the project will go before the Zoning Commission.  Community members and community organizations will have another opportunity to effect changes on the project and everything will be on the table – not only design elements, but usage issues.  That process is not likely to begin until early next year.

Community Members At ANC6B Special Call Meeting on Hine

ANC6B Joins Others in Criticizing Stanton-Eastbanc Hine Project – Historic Preservation Board Meets on Project Thursday

by Larry Janezich

Tuesday night’s ANC6B Special Call meeting on the Hine project started at6:30 p.m.with more than 50 Capitol Hill residents, but there weren’t many of them left four hours later at meeting’s end.

The ANC hammered out a resolution of recommendations on the Hine project which it will present in testimony before the Historic Preservation Review Board which meets today (Thursday) at 2:15 p.m. to review the historical preservation aspects of the project.

The resolution states that the ANC supports the overall density and proportion of the project.  However, the ANC takes issue with specific aspects of each of the four units making up the project:

8^th Street Residential Building

The resolution recommends the developer reduce the height of the 8^th Street residential building, a goal long sought by the nearby residents.  In addition, the measure emphasizes that the ANC supports reserving the large interior courtyard as public space, and states that if the developer sticks with the current plan of keeping it private, it should shrink in size and be used to reduce the height and mass of the building.

North Residential Building

The resolution expresses the ANC’s vague discomfort with the height, scale, design façade, and streetscape of the North residential building, hinting that things aren’t quire right, but failing to make any recommendation regarding the height of the center portion, that issue being important to nearby neighbors.  The resolution holds open the possibility that this use-driven issue (mandated by 33 affordable housing units in the structure) could be addressed later in the process.

8^th and D Residential and 7^th and Pennsylvania Office Buildings.

The residential building at 8^th and D Streets “does not reflect the character of the neighborhood.”  It’s “too blocky” and “too tall.”  And it needs to be considered in connection with its partner facing Pennsylvania Avenue, the 7^th andPennsylvania Avenue office building.

The design of the latter, the resolution states “does not meet the demands of such a promising location.”  The resolution says, “[a]n absolute reduction in height is essential” – and recommends reducing the 106 foot high roofline by ten feet.

Further, it calls for reconsideration of the scale, height, and façade of both the buildings.

7^th Street Mixed Use Building.

The resolution states more work is needed – especially in the façade design.

The resolution recommends that the developer 1) reduce the massing and height of the overall development by placing the mechanical rooms underground or inside the building, 2) expand underground retail, and 3) requests the developer to provide a three dimensional site contextual model for the project.

Nearby residents wanted language requiring usage to include services to children and barring retail from the 8^th Street residential building.  Both of these proposals were defeated on procedural grounds that this resolution for the HPRB was not the appropriate vehicle for them.

Overall, most efforts to weaken the resolution were unsuccessful.

One effort to weaken it was successful – an amendment by Commissioner Garrison – removed language meant to address the height of the 7^th Street façade.  Some commissioners, who supported resolution language addressing the issue, voted for Garrison’s motion to strike the language, apparently in the belief that this would help move the Commission toward unanimous adoption of the measure.  The motion to strike was agreed to, only to have Garrison and his two voting companions oppose the resolution on final passage.  Consequently, the resolution does not address the issue of height on 7^th Street which a 2009 ANC6B vote limited to no more than 50 feet.

In the end, the resolution passed on 6-3 vote, with ANC6B Chair Glick, and Commissioners Campbell, Frishberg, Pate, Flahaven, and Critchfield voting for it.  Commissioners Garrison, Oldenburg, and Metzger voted no.

Live coverage of the HPRB hearing may be viewed at the following link:

http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Historic+Preservation/About+HPO+&+HPRB/Who+We+Are/Historic+Preservation+Review+Board/Video+Broadcast

Resolution Supporter Commissioner Francis Campbell, ANC Planning and Zoning Committee Chair

Resolution Supporters Glick, Frishberg and Flahaven Before the Vote

Three Member Voting Bloc on ANC 6B Frustrates Unanimity on Hine:  ANC 6B Passes Recommendation on Hine to HPRB on 6 – 3 Vote

by Larry Janezich

In a long and sometimes contentious meeting last night at Brent Elementary school, ANC 6B voted 6-3 to pass a lengthy document communicating its recommendations on the Hine project to the Historic Preservation Review Board.  The Board will meet to review the project tomorrow (Thursday, April 28).

Voting against the resolution were Commissioners Garrison, Oldenburg, and Metzger.

Voting for the Resolution:  ANC6b Chair Glick, Commissioners Campbell, Frishberg, Pate, Critchfield and Flahaven.

The result and lack of unanimity came as a bitter disappointment to several Commissioners who had worked to forge a document which they hoped would receive the support of the entire commission.

One Commissioner, Ivan Frishberg, expressed his dismay that he had spent three hours with Garrison, Oldenburg, and Metzger on Easter Sunday attempting to assuage their concerns and produce a workable compromise.  A commissioner noted that a draft of the entire resolution had been out there for ten days, and noted that Commissioner Oldenburg had only submitted written comments 12 hours ago.

Commissioner Brian Pate also expressed his disappointment, noting the amount of effort that had gone into attempting to reach a compromise, and the Commission’s success at “staving off inappropriate amendments.”  Other Commissioners proposed amendments that did not pass, like Francis Campbell, but they nevertheless voted for the final product. Campbell said the project was too big and needs to go back to the drawing board for more refinement and he was not happy in any “way, shape, or form” with the project.

The minority voting bloc engineered many changes to the document and met with success on more than half of the amendments they offered, but nevertheless they decided vote against it in the end.

Commissioner Brian Flahaven said the resolution was “not my ideal,” but that he would support it in the spirit of compromise, given the time, the number of communications, and the energy that had gone into the effort.  He said that he would “focus on the things that he liked in the resolution, instead of the things he didn’t like.”

Garrison, in contrast, said though the resolution had been improved, “in the end, there are still aspects in the resolution I do not agree with.”  Metzger said the resolution had not been changed to the point where he could support it.  Oldenburg, who had offered the greatest number of successful amendments said, “the resolution doesn’t represent what my constituents tell me,” and declared her opposition to it.  Many of her amendments seemed to be favorable to the developer, or – as she admitted – were “cribbed from the Restoration Society recommendation.”  It was not otherwise clear which constituents she was referring to.

As a result, last night’s lengthy meeting thus resulted in what was in many ways a watered down document which still will not be presented to the city with the authority of a unanimous ANC vote.

A final copy of the Resolution can be viewed here:  http://www.anc6b.org/library.html

HPO Staff Issues Report Favorable to Hine Developer – Statement Places HPO at Odds with Community Sentiment

by Larry Janezich

Friday afternoon, the staff of the Historical Preservation Office (HPO) posted its report and recommendation to the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) on the Hine Project.  The report amounted to a tepid endorsement of the project.  As such it is at odds or with the four community organizations most involved and affected by the development:  EMMCA, Eyes on Hine (EOH), CHRSand a group of 8^th Street residents.

The developer, Stanton-Eastbanc, is represented by architect Amy Weinstein and seeks conceptual design approval by the HPRB for the Hine Project.  Weinstein is a former member of the HPRB (a board of that is informed by, but not beholden to, the HPO staff).

The HPO report provided details which have not been obvious to community members trying to analyze the drawings provided by the developer.  For example, the report lists the maximum heights of the buildings as follows:  North Residential Building, 48 feet; 8^th Street Residential Building, 35 to 48 feet; 8^th and D Corner Building, 63 feet; Pennsylvania Avenue Office Building, 88 feet; and the Plaza Residential Building, 58 feet.

Another detail not heretofore appreciated is that the loading dock accessed from 7^th Street will apparently be visible from the street: “the conceptual direction is … to recess the loading dock considerably back from the building face to minimize its visibility.”

The report evaluates the project regarding three critical elements:  the site plan, the general architectural direction, and the overall height and massing.

The report finds the conceptual site plan is consistent with established patterns in the Capitol Hill Historic District.  This finding is at odds with the public statements of the aforementioned community groups as well as the DRAFT ANC6b statement on Hine.

The report finds the overall architectural direction of the project consistent with the Board’s design principles for new construction.  While avoiding superlatives, the staff takes the criticism of community groups head on, saying “the project reinterprets the character of the historic district in creative and often whimsical ways.”

It does recommend the architectural direction of the North residential Building be reconsidered, questioning the whether the central core of the building is an appropriate design model.  As for other components to the project, the report states only that “implying depth and providing shadow to the skin of the 8^th and D Corner Building will be particularly important for this design,” and notes that the 7th Street elevation remains too preliminary to comment on.

The report finds that the overall height and massing of the 8^th Street residential building is compatible with the surrounding residential blocks.  Although thePennsylvaniaAvenueOfficeBuilding will be the tallest building on the Avenue, that “doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be incompatible with the Historic District …additional height in this location is not inappropriate” provided certain refinements be adopted.  Among these, the report recommends setting the top floor back from the façade plane, eliminating the vertical masonry projection on Pennsylvania Avenue, and scaling down the height of the ground level storefronts.

The report was most critical of the penthouses, urging minimizing of the penthouse levels by moving the amenity spaces inside the building,

Overall, the staff report recommends approval of the general site plan, approval of the general architectural direction, each with further study in the areas noted above.

The report recommends the approval of the height and massing for the various buildings, with further study of the Pennsylvania Avenue Office Building and the penthouses.

It is unclear what weight the HPRB will give to the HPO staff report, and whether and to what extent the views of the various community groups will be considered by the Board when it meets next Thursday.

The webpage with the documents for the April hearing is here: http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Historic+Preservation/Plans+and+Reports/Project+Reports+and+Actions/HPRB+Reports/HPRB+Meeting+and+Hearings,+April+28,+2011

Hine Development: Pro and Con

Request for Feedback to Improve the Project

by Larry Janezich

Following is a list of standards the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) applies to new construction in a historic district to determine if it is compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

Setback

Orientation

Scale

Proportion

Rhythm

Massing

Height

Materials

Color

Roof Shape

Details and ornamentation

Landscape Features

According to HPO, “Compatibility does not mean exactly duplicating the existing buildings or environment.”  And, “Perhaps the best way to think about a compatible new building is that it should be a good neighbor, enhancing the character of the district and respecting the context, rather than an exact clone.”

More on each of these categories can be found by following this link:

http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Historic+Preservation/Maps+and+Information/Policies+and+Procedures/Design+Guidelines (Scroll down to New Construction in a Historic District)

EMMCA is preparing a statement on the Hine project for presentation to ANC6b and the Historic Preservation Board.  emmcablog.org is requesting feedback from the broader Capitol Hill community in comments to this posting regarding the pros and cons of the Hine development.

A recent posting on the blog Greater Greater Washington by Ryan Velasco – largely in support of the Hine project it – elicited a number of comments, some of which apply to HPO’s  listed criteria.  http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9702/hine-project-is-opportunity-too-great-to-pass-up/

To view the full PowerPoint presentation by Stanton-Eastbanc, visit http://hineschool.com/sites/default/files/2011-03-02%20%20Community%20Presentation.pdf.

Hine Site Seen from Hill's Kitchen

by Larry Janezich

Almost one quarter of the 100 plus EMMCA membership met Wednesday at a meeting attended by ANC6b Commissioners Metzger, Pate, and Frishberg.  The purpose of the meeting was to begin the process of reaching a consensus position to take to the ANC and the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) regarding the Hine Development.

EMMCA members offered comments which fell into three broad categories:  aesthetics, height and massing, and usage.  By far, the most negative comments were directed at the aesthetics of the proposal, based on the most recent concept designs, but several members spoke of desired changes to height and massing and usage as well.

Several participants noted that the project as it appears today is much different than the project that was proposed by Stanton-Eastbanc when they were awarded the development bid, and further, that the project is in fact much worse today than originally proposed.  The project no longer has participants like the Shakespeare Theater administrative and rehearsal space, the Tiger Woods Foundation, the International Relief Development, and apparently no hotel; these partners were significant in securing the bid in the first place.  The office space, which was much touted as necessary to support community retail, has been scaled back in favor of more space for residential – though the number of units remains roughly the same.  This translates to higher end and more expensive residences, something that the community could not envision based on the original RFP from the city or the winning Stanton-Eastbanc bid.

EMMCA President Barbara Riehle noted that it was regrettable that EMMCA has been and sometimes continues to be characterized as anti-development.  When EMMCA endorsed the Street Sense design in 2009, it implicitly endorsed development of the site.  EMMCA’s energy should be focused now on working with the Stanton/Eastbanc team to secure changes that will make the development an asset to the neighborhood.  There were some present who urged reopening the bidding process, but ANC Commissioners indicated they did not think that was feasible.

The discussion also revealed limitations on what it is possible to change via the ANC or HPRB process.  Density and square footage, for example, were set by the city in the “term sheet.”  Changing these criteria requires action by the city rather than the developer.  For this reason, several EMMCA members raised the possibility of sending an EMMCA delegation to meet with city officials, including our own councilmember Tommy Wells.

The following points were brought up by those attending the meeting and were based on the concept designs presented to the community in ANC6b venues during March:

Aesthetics

Most of the members present felt that the project does not maintain the integrity of the Historic District or conform to the character of the community.  They felt that the buildings lacked distinction, resembling nondescript development in the suburbs rather than a unique, thriving, and historical neighborhood in the city.

Height and Massing

There seemed to be general consensus that the existing height limitations for buildings at the site should not be increased; that is, that Stanton/Eastbanc should not be granted the zoning exemption which they are seeking.  In addition, there was considerable support for “building down,” below grade, as an alternative to height.  There were objections to height being moved from 7^th Street to 8^th Street, since 7^th is already a retail and commercial corridor while 8^th is residential.

Usage

In addition to the major changes regarding participants dropping out of the project, concerns were raised that retail is being allowed to encroach on 8^th Street, that moving access to parking to 8^th and C on weekends will be problematic, that the popular public access piazza has been downgraded and compromised, that no consideration has been given to providing an educational element to the project, in keeping with the building’s historic function as a school.

ANC commissioners emphasized that in order to be effective, any testimony or statement provided on behalf of residents must contain specific suggestions and be within applicable laws and regulations.

The Historic Preservation Office has guidelines for new construction in a historic district.  They are as follows:

“The design of a new building is critical to preserving the character of a historic district. The new building should contribute to that character by respecting the location, design, materials and other character-defining elements of the historic buildings, as well as respecting the character of the landscape and other important features of the street and district. A new building should be compatible with the existing environment without exactly duplicating existing buildings. A new building in a historic district must also conform to the District of Columbia’s zoning and building codes.”

For more information, follow this link and scroll down to “New Construction in a Historic District.”  http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Historic+Preservation/Maps+and+Information/Policies+and+Procedures/Design+Guidelines

Hereafter, the process will unfold as follows:

Week of April 4 (?):  Restoration Society Meeting on Historic Preservation Application for Hine – community invited – time and place tbd.

April 26: Second Special Call Meeting by ANC6b to discuss Hine, debate and vote on recommendation to HPRB on Stanton Historic Preservation Application – time and place tbd.

April 28: HPRB hearing

EMMCA will look to provide the ANC with the substance of its testimony for the HPRB prior to the ANC special call meeting.