Tag Archives: Hine

May 14, 2012 · 11:26 pm

Councilmember Wells To Answer the Community’s Questions on Hine, Eastern Market, and the Weekend Flea Markets

Councilmember Wells To Answer the Community’s Questions on Hine, Eastern Market, and the Weekend Flea Markets

by Larry Janezich

On Tuesday, May 22, Councilmember Tommy Wells meets the community to answer questions about the Hine Re-Development, Eastern Market, and the future of the weekend flea markets.  The meeting will be hosted by EMMCA from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. at Brent School, 3rd and North Carolina Avenue, SE.  Community volunteers have been staffing an information table at Eastern Market on weekends and handing out leaflets urging a large turnout of Capitol Hill residents with concerns or questions on these issues.   EMMCA is asking residents to send their top three concerns or questions to Barbara Riehle:  barbara@erols.com.

The DC Zoning Commission has announced a zoning change hearing on the project for June 14, and EMMCA will join other community groups in testifying before the Commission.  ANC6B has been conducting on-going negotiations with the developer based on the community concerns as determined by deliberations of its special subcommittee established  to consider the developer’s request to change the zoning.

The developer’s schedule and other important dates for the project are as follows:

June 14, 2012 – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Hearing

Jan – Oct 2012 – Construction Drawings Completed

Sept 2012 – Submit request for Building Permits

April 2013 – Start Building Construction

Spring 2015 – Completion

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as ,

April 27, 2012 · 5:00 pm

Editorial: HPRB Advances Hine Project – With Reservations

HPRB Votes To Advance the Hine Project 5-3

Photo credit:  Maggie Hall

Editorial*:  HPRB Advances Hine Project – With Reservations

by Larry Janezich

Yesterday, the Historic Preservation Review Board voted 5 – 3 to advance the Hine Project, but not without some board members expressing serious reservations about the design of the southern façade of the Pennsylvania Avenue Office Building, the design of the north façade of the North Residential Building, the plaza’s water feature, and the connection between the residential and office buildings facing Pennsylvania Avenue.  One board member recommended taking “at least one floor” off of the 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue Office Building.

Though the Board felt Eastern Market fell outside of their purview, Chair Catherine Buell nevertheless urged HPO staff, Councilmember Wells’ office, the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development’s office, and the developer to provide a greater accommodation for the weekend flea market.

Five community organizations, including ANC6B, the Capitol Hill Restoration Society, Eastern Market Metro Community Association, Eyes on Hine, and the Hine Site North Neighbors all sent representatives to express serious concerns about the project.  A common concern of all was the height and mass of the development.  The most critical of the organizations was the Capitol Hill Restoration Society, which, in addition to calling on HPRB to reconsider its prior approval of the height and massing of certain components of the Hine Project also submitted a lengthy report criticizes design elements in great detail.

Michael Berman, owner of Diverse Markets Management which manages the Flea Market, also appeared before the HPRB to testify on the inadequacy of the developer’s plan to site the weekend on the to be reopened C Street and the associated plaza.

ANC 6B Commissioner Kirsten Oldenburg testified in support of the Hine Project and urged Board approval.  Her testimony included support for the “unique design” of the south façade of the 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue Building, its “commanding presence,” and opposed any reduction in height of the building, saying “reducing the height would be a step backward.”

The vote of the board was as follows:

To approve the motion to approve the staff report:  Chair Catherine Buell and Board Members Rauzia Ally, Andrew Aurbach, Maria Casarella, Joseph Taylor.

Opposing the motion to approve:  Board Members Robert Sonderman, Gretchen Pfaehler, Graham Davidson.

Board Member Nancy Metzger, former Chair of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society’s Historic Preservation Committee, has recused herself from consideration in this matter.

* The author of this posting presented testimony on behalf of EMMCA at yesterday’s hearing.

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as ,

April 25, 2012 · 7:46 pm

Restoration Society Calls for HPRB Reconsideration of Hine Project

Restoration Society Calls for HPRB Reconsideration of Hine Project

by Larry Janezich

In testimony to be delivered at tomorrow’s hearing before the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB), the Capitol Hill Restoration Society (CHRS) will ask the board to reconsider its earlier concept approval regarding the design, scale, height, and mass of the Hine project’s 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue Office building, the most prominent part of the project and its signature building.

“We consider this element to be completely incompatible with the historic character of Capitol Hill and Pennsylvania Avenue SE,” the CHRS submits, adding, “It is stylistically incongruent with the buildings I connects and highly out of place in the historic district.”  And, “We ask HPRB to please reconsider its earlier concept decisions regarding his building’s design, scale height, and mass.”

The statement is a strongly worded submission, making it clear that the CHRS views the 7th St. and Pennsylvania Avenue buildings as too big, too tall and too massive in relation to the scale of the surrounding historic district.  The CHRS asks that the seventh floor be dropped and the sixth floor set back at least as far as the seventh is now.

Regarding design of the building, the statements says, “This is not the right design for such a prominent and highly visible location on a primary corner in the heart of the historic district,” and adds that at this prominent location, the building should “shine, rather than loom.”

CHRS also calls for reducing the scale of the 7th Street building, adding its voice to neighborhood concerns regarding a “canyon” effect on that narrow commercial strip.

However, the CHRS finds little to fault in the north building or the 8th Street residential building, both of which have received robust criticism from the surrounding neighborhood.

The statement concludes with a reference to the 2009 Stanton/Eastbanc proposal, a plan which CHRS supported.  But as they note in their HPRB testimony, that earlier proposal was six stories on Pennsylvania Avenue, with a sixth story deeply set back on 7th Street and the Pennsylvania Avenue corner.  Stanton/Eastbanc’s current plans call for an office building that is six stories with a 7th story set back 20 feet from 7th Street and only 12 feet from Pennsylvania Avenue.  Similarly, the plaza building on 7th and C Streets is five stories where it was once four, and it has crept onto 7th Street where it faces two story historic structures directly across the street.

Thursday’s HPRB hearing is to consider Stanton-Eastbanc’s response to concerns raised by the HPRB in its review of the projects design concept last summer.  In contrast to the opinion of CHRS and other community organizations, including EMMCA, EOH, and the Hine Project North Neighbors, the Historic Preservation Office Staff Report “recommends that the Review Board find that the revisions improve the compatibility of the conceptual plan,” and urges HPRB approval. If approved, the HPRB would be advancing a design widely held to be incompatible with its neighborhood and without any significant grassroots support from households which are forced to comply with stringent HPRB standards when renovating their own properties.

The hearing is scheduled to begin at 9:00am, in Room 220, 441 4th Street, NW.  Indications are that the Hine project won’t come up until after 12:00 noon.

 

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as ,

April 17, 2012 · 12:44 pm

Editorial: Yard Sign Campaign to Downsize Hine Begins Today

Sign campaign calls on Councilmember Tommy Wells to downsize Hine Project. Photo credit: Maggie Hall

Editorial:  Yard Sign Campaign to Downsize Hine Begins Today

by Larry Janezich

Yard signs encouraging Councilmember Tommy Wells to use his influence to downsize the Hine project to a height more in keeping with the Capitol Hill neighborhood have gone up on properties near the site of the future development.

The signs, part of EMMCA’s political messaging campaign on Hine, read “Tommy: Right Size Hine,” and list a website for interested parties to view (http://rightsizehine.org/).  The decision to move forward with the signs, and to direct them toward Tommy Wells, was made once the Office of Planning (OP) recommended proceeding with the zoning change for the site without taking issue with the height of the proposed Hine Development put forward by Stanton/Eastbanc.

The OP’s failure to name height as a prominent concern seemed to limit what could be achieved through the normal operations involved in changing the zoning of the site through the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process.  Previously, Wells steered neighbors to the PUD process to resolve such concerns, and that led to the decision to address Tommy Wells by name on the sign.  The Councilmember is the only realistic political option left for neighbors who wish to see meaningful changes to the Hine Development proposal.

The signs are being distributed by Barbara Riehle (barbara@erols.com).

67 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as

April 3, 2012 · 4:47 pm

Privatizing C Street Emerges As Key Hine Development Issue: FOIA Shows City Asked Developer to Define Ownership Deal

Privatizing C Street Emerges As Key Hine Development Issue: FOIA Shows City Asked Developer to Define Ownership Deal

by Larry Janezich

The privatization of the to-be-reopened C Street between 7th and 8th Streets, SE, has emerged as a thorny issue for Hine Project developers, Stanton/Eastbanc.

The developers have listed the re-opening of C Street at their expense – and restoration of the L’Enfant Plan for the city – as one of the main benefits for the city associated with the Hine project.  Yet members of the ANC 6B Hine Subcommittee, which met last Thursday night at the Hill Center, questioned both the appropriateness of the privatization and the procedures under which this portion of C Street was placed in the developer’s hands.

The privatization of the street has several ramifications for the community, including control of the weekend flea markets, loss of revenue for Eastern Market, loss of public space and the use of that space as a revenue raising measure for the developer.  In addition, Stanton[Eastbanc’s ability to unilaterally program the street, including its stated intent to use the space for “special events and programs such as lunch time concerts, holiday – or evening – events” raises concerns regarding noise and traffic issues for the nearby neighbors.

The core of the issue as expressed by Subcommittee member Bill Pate (no relation to ANC6B Commissioner Brian Pate) is the privatization of a public resource, allowing the raising of revenue by and for the benefit of the developer.  “The privatization of the street does not benefit the community,” Pate observed, and therefore it is an issue that “needs mitigation.”

Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee (EMCAC) Chair Donna Scheeder who was in the audience, noted that the community wanted the street reopened, but was surprised when it learned that the street would be privatized and the connection between 7th and 8th Street would not happen the way they envisioned.   Jose Sousa of the Deputy Mayor’s Office for Economic Development (DMPED) has stated – and it is the conventional wisdom – that the privatization of C Street came about as a condition of the Land Disposition Agreement, passed by the City Council July 13, 2010.

The reopening of the street was a condition of the Deputy Mayor’s request for proposals for developing the site (RFP), and therefore a feature common to all final proposals considered by DMPED.

Yet FOIA documents obtained by emmcablog show that it was the developer who approached DDOT discuss questions of ownership, maintenance, and management of the to-be-reopened street in December 2009, three months after they were awarded the Hine development project, and that the privatization of C Street was not the only or most obvious answer to these questions.

DDOT responded to Stanton/Eastbanc’s questions by asking Stanton to “recommend a course of action on how to deal with the C Street SE as it crosses the Hine School site…,” essentially inviting the interested party to chart the policy framework under which the disposition of C Street would be considered.  Apparently, no community members or representatives were present at any of the meetings convened to discuss the questions.

“How should the space be owned?” Stanton/Eastbanc’s memorandum written in response to the DDOT request inquired.  The developer’s answer to the question they posed was included in its final recommendation:  “Stanton-Eastbanc is committed to permanently expanding the public market area around Eastern Market onto the Hine Site and to raising the quality and attractiveness of the Saturday Arts and Crafts- and Sunday-Flea Markets… To this end it makes most sense to design C Street and the plaza for pedestrians and the markets while enabling vehicle traffic as a secondary design use.”  Accordingly, the developer concluded that “it makes most sense to manage the street and plaza privately.”

As has been previously reported on this blog, space in the Hine Development for the weekend flea market has been significantly curtailed to roughly half of its current size.  This seems to call into question the first and presumably paramount reason cited by Stanton Eastbanc as a reason to manage the street privately.

Moreover, the component of the City Council-passed Land Disposition Agreement which provides for the privatization of C Street refers particulars of reconstruction of the street to a “DDOT Apreement.”  Although all relevant documents are supposed to be included in the public record (however incomplete they are at the time of City Council approval), no such document appears in the Disposition Agreement as passed by the Council, and one source at DDOT surmised that the reference was to a prospective agreement.

Under the current agreement with the developer, the developer will finance the rebuilding and continuous maintenance of the 700 block of C Street, SE.  The agreement provides that the developer will grant an easement to the DC government to permit vehicular access through the reopened C Street, including emergency vehicles, except when the street is closed on weekends for vendors.

ANC6B’s Hine Subcommittee is considering what to recommend to the full ANC6B regarding what the community should ask for from Stanton/Eastbanc to mitigate or alleviate the impact of the developer’s private ownership of C Street.  It appears to be the consensus of the Subcommittee that giving the developer complete control over public use of the street has the potential to create undue hardships for surrounding neighbors and businesses.  Further, there appears to be wide agreement among members of the Subcommittee that the current plan grants the developer too much authority over what is ostensibly public space.

Some options regarding mitigation which the Subcommittee is considering include modifying the ground lease to provide for appropriate management and programming of the street, use of the Open Space Management Plan to require inclusion of community members and business interests in management of the street, and having the city retain legal authority over the street and grant an easement to Stanton/Eastbanc to close and manage the street on weekends during flea market hours.

ANC6B Hine Subcommittee will meet Thursday, April 5 at 7:00pm in Hill Center, Room TBA, to consider design issues for the proposed development at the Hine School site. The meeting will include a presentation by the architects and consideration of recommendations for both the PUD negotiation and the ANC position before the April 26th Historic Preservation Review Board.

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as , ,

March 26, 2012 · 5:43 pm

Stanton/Eastbanc Unveils New Drawings, Initiates Marketing Plan

Stanton/Eastbanc Unveils New Drawings, Initiates Marketing Plan

by Larry Janezich

Hine project developer Stanton/Eastbanc has unveiled architect Amy Weinstein’s new drawings changing design elements of the Hine Redevelopment in response to concerns raised by the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB).  The Board will hold a hearing to review the new plans – possibly in April.  The project is currently working its way through the PUD process to change the zoning to accommodate the project’s greater height and density.  That process will conclude with a series of hearings before DC’s Zoning Commission, likely in June.

Because of the size of the images on the website make assessing the degree of change difficult to assess.  The drawing can be viewed here:

http://www.hineschool.com/wp–content/uploads/2012/03/HineProjectPUDPre-hearingStatement-03-26-2012.pdf

Stanton/Eastbanc has given a face lift to their website which initiates a marketing plan and solicits expression of interest from potential residential, retail, and commercial interest.  The site reveals that the residences will comprise studios, one bedrooms, one bedrooms plus den, two bedrooms, two bedrooms plus den, three bedrooms, and penthouses in a price range from $500,000 to $3,000,000.  Potential buyers are asked to register their interest in amenities, including a business center, conference room, private party room, exercise room, and rooftop pool.  The link to the website is here:  http://www.hineschool.com/

The website also list new additions to the Stanton/Eastbanc development team.  In addition to previous associates Dantes Partners (counselors on affordable housing), and Esocoff Associates (architect), the site list AutoPark, Inc., the Jarvis Company (government relations, permit acquisition, and zoning counseling); and L.S. Caldwell & Associates (contracting and employment compliance).

ANC 6B’s Hine Subcommittee will meeting on Thursday, March 29, at Hill Center to review its recommendations regarding design, open space, and retail plan recommendations.

ANC6B’s schedule on the Hine Development is as follows.  Details will be posted on this blog the week of the event.

April 3             Planning and Zoning Committee considers recommendations on full amenities  and benefits list, mitigation list and recommendations to HPRB. Stanton/Eastbanc may make a presentation regarding the new drawings at this  meeting.

April 10           ANC6B considers recommendations from Planning and Zoning Committee

April 26           Hine Subcommittee meeting on tentative agreements with developers

May 1              Potential action on agreements from Planning and Zoning Committee

May 8              Potential action on agreements from the ANC

May/ June       Possible Hine Subcommittee and ANC special call meeting to    prepare for Zoning Commission hearing

Late June         Likely beginning of Zoning Commission hearing

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as ,

March 7, 2012 · 1:26 pm

ANC6B to Take Up Requests for Hine Design Changes/Benefits & Amenities

Planning and Zoning Committee Chair Francis Campbell (third from left) leads the vote to send requests for Hine development design changes to the full ANC

ANC6B to Take Up Requests for Hine Design Changes/Benefits & Amenities – Schedule Released Leading Up to Zoning Commission Hearing

by Larry Janezich

Tuesday night, ANC Commissioner Francis Campbell’s Planning and Zoning Committee voted to forward initial requests for design changes to the Hine project as well as a list of initial requests for benefits and amenities to the full ANC.  Following consideration at next Tuesday’s ANC meeting at Hill Center, the ANC’s Hine Subcommittee, chaired by Commissioner Ivan Frishberg,  will begin negotiations with Stanton/Eastbanc to achieve these goals.

Additional benefits, amenities, and mitigations are being worked on by the Subcommittee’s working groups: i.e., Design, Transportation, Open Space, and Retail.  The Subcommittee will meet later this month to consider these additional issues.

The first group of requests regarded changes in the project’s design:

  1.  Lowering of the residential building at 8th and D and redesigning the façade to be more “outstanding;”
  2. Redesign the corner of 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue to create a focal point through greater articulation at street level;
  3. Lowering the height of the 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue building;
  4. Reconsideration of the entrance to the office building to ensure an outstanding façade on Pennsylvania Avenue;
  5. More open and public use space in the Plaza.

The motion to forward these requests to the full ANC was agreed to 6-1, with Commissioners Campbell, Critchfield, Frishberg, Pate, Metzger and resident member Wildermann voting for the motion and Commissioner Oldenberg voting in the negative.

The second group of requests concerned “big ticket” benefits and amenities:

  1. A greater percentage of local retail than offered in the current application;
  2. More exterior open space for public use;
  3. Interior community use and meeting space;
  4. Subsidized non-profit office space;
  5. Developer support for an infant and toddler care facility to be run by a third party.

A motion to forward these requests to the full ANC was agreed to unanimously.

There is strong sentiment among ANC commissioners and members of the community that the façade of the 8th and D Street building fails to achieve the distinction that the signature buildings on Pennsylvania Avenue require; further consideration of this issue awaits the developer’s response to similar concerns by the Historic Preservation Review Board.  The developers are scheduled to present new drawings to the Board on March 23.

Other major issues which are expected to be addressed in the near future include the height of the office building on 7th Street, the interior courtyard, space for the weekend flea market, and maintaining of a buffer between the project’s retail component and nearby residences in the neighborhood.

The proposed schedule for further consideration of the project and management of negotiations with the developer is as follows:

March 13         Developers submit a design revision to HPRB to respond to requests made in HPRB’s preliminary review in 2011

March 20         Hine Subcommittee meets to review the proposed list of mitigation issues and additional benefit/amenity issues for the April ANC cycle

March 29         Hine Subcommittee continues work from the March 20 meeting, including consideration of a response to the design revisions presented to HPRB

April 3             Planning and Zoning Committee considers recommendations on full amenities and benefits list, mitigation list and recommendations to HPRB

April 10           ANC6B considers recommendations from Planning and Zoning Committee

April 26           Hine Subcommittee meeting on tentative agreements with developers

May 1              Potential action from Planning and Zoning Committee

May 8              Potential action from the ANC

May/ June       Possible Hine Subcommittee and ANC special call meeting to    prepare for Zoning Commission hearing

Late June         likely beginning of Zoning Commission hearing

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as

March 1, 2012 · 11:16 am

Developer Releases Winter/Summer Shadow Studies on Hine Development

Shadow Studies – Winter

Shadow Studies – Summer

Developer Releases Winter/Summer Shadow Studies on Hine Development

by Larry Janezich

Stanton/Eastbanc has released projections of how the sun’s shadow will affect the surrounding streets and buildings in summer and winter.   The studies are required by the Planned Unit Development appication necessary to change the zoning of the Hine site in order to accommodate greater height and density.  Consideration of the height issue by community organizaitions has been delayed pending receipt of the studies.  Consideration of the scale and mass continues to await the arrival of the three dimensional model of the project and the surrounding blocks scheduled to be available in mid March.   The ANC6B Hine Subcommittee working group on design will meet at 5:00pm today, to continue its work on design issues given this new information.

For additional information on shadow studies, click here:  http://www.3rddimension.ie/news/equinox-shadow-studies/

Comments Off on Developer Releases Winter/Summer Shadow Studies on Hine Development

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as

February 29, 2012 · 10:55 am

ANC6B Working Group Wrestles with Hine Design Issues – Delays Considering Height Issue Pending Forthcoming Shadow Study

ANC6B Working Group Wrestles with Hine Design Issues – Delays Considering Height Issue Pending Forthcoming Shadow Study

by Larry Janezich

Last Tuesday night the ANC6B Working Group on the Hine Design met to consider recommendations to improve the design of the Hine project, but deferred consideration of the height issue until the results of the shadow study are made available, possibly later this week.  The shadow study is required by the Zoning Commission as part of Stanton/Eastbanc’s application to change the zoning of the site permitting a building height up to 90 feet.  A private consultant, hired by Stanton/Eastbanc, will determine what shadows the building will cast by time of day and time of year.

At the meeting, working group leader Gary Peterson called the height of the proposed development “the elephant in the room.”  Former ANC6B Commissioner Ken Jarboe noted that the building on 7th Street is two stories higher in the current plan than it was in the proposal which the city selected when awarding the bid to Stanton, making it three stories higher than the building housing Le Pain Quotidian across the street.  Jarboe said, “[e]ven with a step down of the building toward C Street, building to the property line creates a canyon effect.”  Peterson agreed with this, saying that “there’s something wrong with the height.”  ANC6B Commissioner Dave Garrison differed, however, saying “it doesn’t look like a canyon to me.  I’m hard pressed to say this is a canyon.”

Also at the meeting, the façade of the 7th Street building came under fire for the windows all being the same size and the confusing attempt to break the single building into three sections to make it look less monolithic and more human in scale.  While the working group seemed to agree with these goals, the feeling was strong that the design efforts to do this were unsuccessful.

Peterson put to rest the idea that the development might be set back from 7th Street to encompass a view of Eastern Market from the Metro plaza as “a dead letter,” saying the National Planning Commission and the Historic Preservation Review Board were opposed.   He also shot down any idea of having an entrance or exit to underground parking on D Street or Pennsylvania Avenue, saying because the city will oppose a curb cut, “it’s not going to happen.”

The group will meet next on Thursday, March 1, when the shadow study might be available.    Peterson said he hoped it Stanton/Eastbanc would put it on the Hine website for viewing by the community.  There was no discussion at the design working group of the 3-D scale model, reported by Stanton Eastbanc to be delivered from China mid-March.

The next meeting of ANC’s Subcommittee on the Hine PUD process will be on Wednesday, February 29, at 7:00pm in Hill Center.

27 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as

February 24, 2012 · 2:50 am

Deputy Mayor’s Office Blames Unnamed Federal Agency for Hine Project Delay – Chair Kwame Brown Cites Pressure on Council to Fast Track Hine Project

Deputy Mayor’s Office Blames Unnamed Federal Agency for Hine Project Delay -Chair Kwame Brown Cites Pressure on Council to Fast Track Hine Project

by Larry Janezich

Yesterday, Corey Lee, Hine Project Manager for the Office of Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, was asked by Kwame Brown, Chair of the City Council’s Committee on the Whole,  to explain why little on the project had happened since Council rushed to approve it in 2010.  Lee offered that this project is “pretty complex” and claimed that delay was related to having to “figure out what other federal entities who have tried to reach in and whether they had any jurisdiction over the project.”  Lee said, the agency in question “is slipping my mind right now.”  He went on to explain that it was “really a question of oversight with respect to design, and whether another agency would have input and how that would – and how that would impact the townhouses….”

This is the first time that the specter of a federal agency inserting itself into the Hine design process has come to the attention of the neighborhood and community organizations following the development of the Hine project.  It has been clear that the City Council has expedited approval of the project.  As Brown characterized the imperative; “we’ve got to move this right now, the whole world was going to fall apart if we don’t move the surplus and disposition.”

Recently, it has also been clear that Office of Planning has been pushing the project through the PUD process.  Last week, the Zoning Commission heard the Office of Planning agree that Stanton/Eastbanc’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) application on the Hine Project was “unsettled” and perhaps not quite ready for a final hearing before the Zoning Commission.   None the less, the Office of Planning recommended that the project be moved forward to a final hearing, based on assurances in an “animated discussion with the developer” that the project would be ready for that hearing when it was scheduled.

Brown’s questions were framed in the context of the Council being told that the deal would fall apart, unless the project were approved without delay, and yet little had happened since council approval.  Yesterday, Brown was told that the reason the City Council had to fast track approval of the Hine Project in 2010; the developer, Stanton/Eastbanc, refused to commit $3 million on design work for the project until the Council had approved it.

Excerpts from the hearing appear below.

Committee of the Whole Hearing today, Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 7:55:00 in the hearing tape, Kwame Brown asks Corey Lee about Hine status:

Lee:  Right now the Hines [sic] Jr HS project has recently been set down for zoning hearing for PUD.  We have gone through a pretty intensive community engagement process over the past 12 months or so.  Gone before HPRB.  There’s a small group of citizens who are not in favor of the project, but it’s very nominal.  At this point we are looking forward to a great project.

KB:  What happens now?  I mean, the reason I ask the question is because what we received from the committee is that we got this, we’ve got to move this right now, the whole world was going to fall apart if we don’t move the surplus and disposition and then when we move it, it just stops.  Right?  Like, nothing kind of happens.  Where are we now because the world was going to fall apart a little while ago?

Lee: “Well, I’m not familiar with the world falling apart…

KB:  I mean in terms of it had to hurry up and get out of the Council, if it didn’t then the whole deal was going to fall apart. So we did that a little while ago and  I’m just like OK….?

Lee:  It’s a pretty complex project, so it takes quite a bit of time as opposed to some of the smaller projects that you’ve mentioned today.  This is a project that we’ve had to figure out what other Federal entitites that have tried to reach in and whether they’ve had any kind of jurisdiction over the project.

KB:  Over the Hine school?

Lee:  That is correct.  Because it is a former school site.

KB:   What part would the Feds have?  I mean…

Lee:  Well, we had to make that argument  through working with OP, working with HPRB (Historic Preservation Review Board), to insure that just based on the location and the ownership structure, and also with Hine being in that historic overlay along Pennsylvania Avenue, whether or not somebody else would have the ability to reach in.  I’m actually…the name of the agency is slipping my mind right now.

KB:  The reason I asked that question is because when the world was falling apart and I had hurry up and move it, all that had been taken care of.  They told me everything was taken care of, it was ready to go. And now and I’m like, well I thought, a lot of that had been settled, because why would we surplus or disposition something that we don’t even know if we can surplus and disposition because it might not even be ours.

Lee:  It wasn’t a question of surplus or disposition, it was oversight with respect to design.  Whether another agency would have…how that would affect the timeline.

KB:  So this was more about the design.

Senthil Sankaran (Director of Development) interjected here:  Correct.   What you heard Corey indicate all came out through the design and development process by which the developer has refined his design over the last year since the approval of the surplus disposition.

KB:  Two years, almost two years.  It’s almost two years.

Senthil Sankaran:  Sorry, almost two years.  They are on schedule per the LDA that was negotiated in which they were recently set down by the Zoning Commission for their PUD hearing.  PUD, depending on the workload of the commission, could be six to twelve months.  After which they’ll be able to achieve a financial settlement and a groundbreaking by [crosstalk]…July 20, 2013 is their groundbreaking, which will keep it within the terms of the disposition agreement.

KB:  So that’s on schedule.  Was that part of the “Moving Projects Forward?” [crosstalk discussion of why Hine was not included in list of projects going to groundbreaking in 2012]  …. Mr. Jackson just told me the developer wouldn’t pay the money until the Council approved it.  So that’s why we had to approve it, so the developer could spend on the design work the $3 million dollars.  So, I got the answer to that.

View the hearing video here:  http://dc.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=1086   Go to 7:54:10

10 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Tagged as