Tag Archives: Stanton-Eastbanc

New Documents Show Developer Pressed City to Close on Hine to Avoid Bowser Hearing

New Documents Show Developer Pressed City to Close on Hine to Avoid Bowser Hearing

David Wilmot – Lobbyist and Hine Partner – Pressured Mayor’s Office

by Larry Janezich

A slew of new documents released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request

(FOIA) filed for records related to the transfer of the Hine site from the city to the developer

reveal that the developer for the site, Stanton/Eastbanc (SEB), made a concerted effort to go to closing quickly, in part to avoid appearing before Muriel Bowser’s Committee on Economic Development.

The records also show the difference between the city’s public presentation of its decisions and the private deliberations carried on with the developer.  The documents were produced by the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development (DMPED) only after the General Counsel to the Mayor ordered the office to be more forthcoming in response to the FOIA filed by Oliver Hall, attorney for residents who are appealing the Zoning Commission’s approval of Hine project.

The City Council’s latest extension of the original closing deadline would expire on July 13.  As closing on that date became increasingly questionable and the city was anticipating extending the deadline again, the Hine partners began maneuvering to close by the July 13 date.

On June 12, 2013, Eastbanc’s mostly-silent partner on the Hine and West End projects, David Wilmot, the director of Autopark (as well as lawyer and powerful local lobbyist who Washington City Paper has recently tied to Jeff Thompson, the former city contractor now a target of  a federal corruption investigation in the District http://bit.ly/1egvbiW), weighed in with the Mayor’s office.  In a 5:51am email to Janene Jackson, director of the Mayor’s Office of Policy and Legislative Affairs, Wilmot says, “Yesterday, we met with DM (Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development) Victor Hoskins who indicated that he supports our proposed solutions and needs to confer with the Mayor before providing an answer to our requests.”  He went on to say that an appearance before Bowser’s committee for an extension should be a “last resort, only to be exercised in the event that we are unable to close…Quite frankly, the last place we should want to visit on these projects is the Council.”  (City records show that in January, 2014, Wilmot contributed $2000 to the Gray campaign.)

Janene Jackson responded with an email later that same day at 5:47 pm.  Jackson told Wilmot:  “I must admit, I am concerned that we’re not following the usual process of extension because I think it will blow back negatively on the Mayor but I’ll defer to the DM.”  Wilmot’s reply said, “Let me be clear that the DM supports our position.”

Part of the “solutions” referred to by Wilmost was the proposal to split the Hine closing into two components – the land closing, and the financial closing at a later date.  Although presented to the public as unremarkable, the proposal to split the Hine closing and the rush to closing in order to avoid appearing later before Bowser’s committee for a progress report, appears to have worried the Mayor’s Office.

In a June 17, 2013, Jeff Miller, Director of Real Estate, DMPED, emailed Eastbanc President Anthony Lanier saying “The Deputy Mayor has consulted with Mayor Gray and his advisory team on the alternatives to legislation that you have proposed, specifically bifurcating a closing into a land closing and a subsequent financial closing upon a favorable decision of each appeal.  Such a process, as you have described, would eliminate the risk of taking the project to Council for renewal of the surplus and disposition authority.”

Miller cited five concerns standing in the way of moving to closing: public space encroachment, no financing raised for the development, tenant agreements still under negotiation, the in-flux status of the PUD during litigation, and differences between cost estimates and actual costs.  Miller goes on to say, “Under the weight of this uncertainty the District is reticent about closing ahead of resolution of each of these items, and will abide by the original LDA terms of conditions precedent to close.  We also feel that the risk of Council action unfavorable to this project is slightly less than for that of the West End project.  Toward this end we plan to move forward with extension legislation, which we will introduce to Council by June 26th.”

The same email discusses the city’s reservations regarding Eastbanc’s West End project, which, at the time and as discussed in the same email, was also under litigation.  Yet the city did not enumerate financing as one of the concerns regarding the West End Library.

As the July 13 closing date approached, SEB continued to press for early closing, warning that the Hine project could fall victim to campaign politics.  However, with some of the outstanding issues still unresolved it appeared that it would be necessary to extend the closing date.

On June 28, Anthony Lanier, president of Eastbanc and managing partner of SEB, pressed the city to move to closing quickly and avoid the possibility of going before Bowser’s committee for an extension.  In an email of that date, Lanier expresses his concern for “the voting dynamics of citizen support for Bowser v. support for Hine.”

The concerns regarding the politics of Hine came up again on July 1.  In an email to Lanier on that date, Miller states that he and Hoskins had met with the DMPED internal team and the Office of the Attorney General regarding early closing.  “The internal recommendation was that even if the outstanding business issues are put aside the risk to the city of a closing followed by the PUD remanded to the Zoning Commission is too great.”  He goes on to say “the city is best served by waiting to close until the PUD process has concluded….  The email indicates an about face for Hoskins, saying that the Deputy Mayor supports this and is unwilling to close while the PUD litigation remains outstanding.  It goes on to say ‘We have taken the necessary steps for the extension…. ‘”

Later that day, at 3:07pm, an alarmed Anthony Lanier, responded to Miller’s email with a quick note to say “not good, bordering on disaster.”

At 3:42pm the same day, another Lanier email to Miller, reads in part: “An extension, if it actually succeeds, is a lateral move, transferring future decisions into a volatile political arena fraught with risk.  The Ward Councilmember as well as a political favorite of the opponents are running for Mayor with distinct political goals which are not necessarily symbiotic with yours and ours…in the meantime, the financial commitments we have obtained will be suspended.”  (It is unclear to which financial commitments Lanier refers to here: the West End, or federal affordable housing tax credits for Hine and West End which are routinely purchased by Wall Street banks looking to improve their Community Reinvestment rating).  Lanier requested a meeting “ideally prior to the end of the day” between SEB “and all parties in order to come to the most sensible conclusion.”

In this particular exchange between Lanier and Miller, several of the emails have been blacked out by DMPED, raising the question of whether these emails meet a legal threshold for exclusion, or are merely embarrassing to parties involved.

On July 9, ANC 6B voted unanimously for a one year extension of the closing deadline, citing two issues that in its view made this necessary:  a surveying discrepancy and the appeal to the DC Court of Appeals of the Zoning Commission ruling filed by neighbors, which the developer and the ANC contended has delayed financing for the project.  The letter stated that the city and developers were pursuing an alternate route to the settlement that will allow the development process to continue. Though lack of financing has routinely been connected to the on-going litigation by the developer and the ANC, the city did not relate the two in Miller’s email of June 17, and did not cite financing as a concern with the West End project, which was also under appeal.

On July 10, the City Council extended the deadline for closing by six months.  Mayor Gray had requested a one year extension, but Councilmember Bowser offered an amendment providing for six months (January 13, 2014), and the Council passed it unanimously on a voice vote, with Councilmember Barry recusing himself citing a standard excuse that he may or may not know principals involved in the project (Wilmot has been tied to Barry, and that is one possible explanation for his recusal).

None of the documents obtained under the FOIA indicate what happened in the meeting requested by Lanier, or even if such a meeting occurred.  But if it did, the developer must have been persuasive.  The city closed on the deal and transferred the land to SEB on July 12.


Filed under Uncategorized

Worksheet on Tommy Wells Campaign Contributions

Worksheet on Tommy Wells Campaign Contributions

Note: Exploratory contributions are noted for items 1 and 2a, 2b; elsewhere “+” indicates a split contribution, whereas “,” separates two people who can be seen as representing one entity. Exclusively exploratory contributions for categories beyond 2b (like that of the Cymrots) are not specifically noted as such; those who are curious can consult the original documents in the Library.)

1)  Tommy Wells

$10,000 exploratory




$15,747.27 total

2)  Developers and related interests

a)  Hine Development

Kitty Kaupp $2,000 ($1,000 exploratory + $1,000)

Ken Golding $2,000 exploratory

Coldwell Banker 605 Pennsylvania Ave

Phyllis Jane Young $2,000 exploratory

John Parker $750 ($500 exploratory + $250)

Catherin Held $500

Angela Grimmer $250

Don Denton $250

$7750 total

 b) Restaurateur/Developer Xavier Cervera & Associates

Xavier Cervera $2,000 exploratory

Barracks Row Entertainment employees:     $2,000 exploratory

$2,000 exploratory

$6,000 total

c) Other Developers/Related Interests

Charles Asmar, lawyer for developers: $1,500 + $1000 ($500 returned as over limit)

William Lansing, Valor Development: $2,000

Phillip Coffey, SVP, Gaylord Entertainment, National Harbor: $2,000

Stephen Pugh, COO, Rappaport Companies: $2,000

Mera Rubell, art collector/developer: $2,000

Robert Cohen, CEO, Perseus Realty: $2,000

Scott Olson, Olson Advocacy Group: $2,000

Benjamin Miller, WestMill and Fundrise: $2,000

Maurice Kreinder, local CVS developer: $750 + $500

Fred Greene, FLGA LLC: $1,000

Matthew Weiss and Joseph Englert: $1,000, $500

Jack Mahoney, Title company: $500, $500

PI Corps, FL, employees: $2,000, $2,000

Pascal Nardelli, Castlebrook $500

Michael Nardelli, policy advisor at Nelson and Mullins: $2,000

Norman Glasgow, lawyer for developers: $500

Jair Lynch, eponymous developer: $500

Judi Seiden, Prudential: $1,000 + $500

Margo Kelly, realtor: $1,000

$29,750 total

($29,750 + $6,000 + $7,750= $43,500)

3) Miscellaneous Large Donors

Nicky and Steve Cymrot: $2,000, $2,000

Local CTO officer, GGW columnist Ken Archer: $2,000

Maygene Daniels $2,000

Timothy Temple, Splash Car Wash, activist against living wage: $2,000

Kent Amos, local public charter founder: $2,000

Todd Degarmo, architect: $2,000

Catherine Ramsdell, Jan’s Tutoring: $2,000

James Loots and Barbara Dougherty Loots: $2,000, $2,000

Ellen McElroy, Pepper Hamilton Law: $2,000

Robert Kosinski, CFO, Scitor Corporations: $2,000

Dan Macy, Editor, Thompson Publishing: $2,000

James Thompson, adoption lawyer: $2,000

Davis Buckley, architect: $2,000

Charles Parsons, retired: $1,000 + $1,000

Mary Lappatto, Cozen and O’Conner: $2,000 (+$1,200 more with same last name)

$35,200 total

4)  Other Large Donors, by Categories:

a) Local Business Barracks Row

$2,000 Constance Tipton, related to Tip Tipton

$3,500 David and Danette Sheldon

$4,000 (possibly more) from Yes! Organic Market and family

$2,000 Bart Vandaele

$2,000 Leah Daniels, Hills Kitchen

b) Local Business outside of Barracks Row

$2,000 Spike Mendehslon

National Capitol Bank

Richard Didden (recently deceased): $2,000

James Didden: $500

$18,000 total

5)  Lobbyists, Political Consultants/Services

a)  With known ties to Wells Campaign*

Winning Connections*

John Jameson: $2,000

Wells’ campaign pays “office rent”

Face to Face Strategies*

Paul Cooper $775 + $1025 (+ $2,000 from person with same home address)

Lists Wells as a client on website

b)  Other Lobbyists, Political Consultants/Services

Bernie Robinson, Livingston Group: $500 + $1,500

Ware Adams, Dean and Co., and wife Ellen: $2,000 + $2,000

Philip Lepanto, Connections Media and owner of Old School Hardware: $2,000

Michael Coscia, printer of campaign material: $1,000 + $1,000

Adam Clampitt, District Communications Group: $500 + $1000

$17,300 total


Filed under Uncategorized

Stanton/East Banc, Shakespeare and Hine

The Shakespeare Theater Expects to Lose Their Barracks Row Rehearsal Space to a Restaurant Nest Year

The Shakespeare Theater Expects to Lose Their Barracks Row Rehearsal Space to a Restaurant Nest Year

Stanton/East Banc, Shakespeare and Hine

by Larry Janezich

Last week, the Washington Post’s Jonathan O’Connell reported that the Shakespeare Theater is looking to the former campus of Southeastern University at 6th and I Streets,  SW,  as a new home for rehearsal, storage, and artist living space.  http://bit.ly/1fcutla

The article related an attempt several years ago by Shakespeare’s managing director, Chris Jennings, to cut a deal with Stanton East Banc (SEB) developers to occupy a portion of the forthcoming Hine development at Eastern Market.  In the article, Jennings accused East Banc of using the relationship with the theater to help win the bid from the city, but then priced the theater out of the project.

Capitol Hill Corner reached out to East Banc for reaction to Jennings’ claim and received the following response from Anthony Lanier, head of East Banc:

“[A]s can be confirmed by Chris Jennings, both parties spent considerable effort to create a zero margin “box” to suit the Shakespeare’s needs, only to arrive at the conclusion, that to build a new back of the house set of spaces simply became to (sic) expensive for Shakespeare to commit to; that fact, combined with the “contingency”, that the money from the theater was subject to a fundraising campaign whose outcome couldn’t be pre-determined, multiplied by the tight milestone schedule under which the design and approvals had to proceed, made the effort unfeasible.  The developer viewed the Shakespeare’s involvement as a unique opportunity to create a special place.  Their involvement certainly was not used to win the award.  Both parties left the table, after having expended significant resources and planning dollars, in agreement that the combination of cost, timing and schedule made the project overreaching and therefore, unfeasible.”

Capitol Hill Corner asked Shakespeare’s Jennings for reaction and received his comment in an email forwarded by a Shakespeare spokesperson.  “Shakespeare Theater agrees – both parties tried in good faith to create a deal that would meet both needs.  And we were thrilled that East Banc sought to enliven their development with our theater company.”

The Washington Post article was the first that many Capitol residents heard that the Shakespeare company was no longer pursuing housing for actors in the Hine project.  In February of 2011, Stanton Development, East Banc’s partner in the Hine project, told the community that the Shakespeare Theater has decided to keep its administrative offices in place on Barracks Row but would house its visiting performers in the Hine development.

Capitol Hill Corner asked the Shakespeare Theater when the decision had been made not to pursue actors’ housing in the project and received the following response from spokesperson Lindsay Tolar:  “Currently we have no agreement for actor housing with East Banc or any other developer.  We continue to explore comprehensive options for all of our support facilities including our artist housing.”   The same question, when put to Stanton Development, received no response.

It would appear that sometime after February of 2011 the Shakespeare housing component was quietly dropped from the project.  Exactly how and when that came about is uncertain.

The Washington Post article says that financing for the Shakespeare’s move into SW is uncertain, but speculates that a possible solution could be found where market rate housing in a mixed use building could subsidize the use of the space by the theater company.   The article says that Jennings also plans to ask the city for assistance.


Filed under Uncategorized

Stanton-EastBanc Asks DC Court of Appeals to Ignore Hine Lease Provisions

Hine Junior High

Hine Junior High

Stanton-EastBanc Asks DC Court of Appeals to Ignore Hine Lease Provisions

Opponents Fault DMPED for Failure to Release Hine Documents

by Larry Janezich

Attorneys for Stanton-EastBanc have asked the DC Court of Appeals to disallow the submission the Hine development land lease as evidence which reveals that DC taxpayers will pay for almost $2 million in benefits and amenities that the Zoning Commission credited to the developer when they approved the Hine PUD process.  In a October 10, 2013 letter to the court, Greenstein Delorme & Luchs, attorneys for SEB, argued that the rule allowing submission of evidence at this stage only pertains to the decision of courts and that plaintiffs had the document in question prior to the court hearing.

Oliver Hall, attorney for the Hine Coalition appealing the Zoning Commission decision, responded on October 15, asserting the propriety of submitting the additional evidence, citing that it had been introduced orally at the hearing, and while it was always available to the developers, became available to petitioners only by filing a FOIA request.

Significantly, Hall’s letter states, “Stanton-EastBanc withheld this information, and permitted the Zoning Commission to make findings that are materially misleading, if not false, because it lacked the very information that Stanton-EastBanc withheld.”

Separately, Hall said, “The lease was discussed extensively during the Court hearing on September 26, 2013.  SEB now hopes to suppress this evidence that it misled the public and misled the Zoning Commission about key terms of this deal.”  Capitol Hill Corner recently reported the filings related to DMPED’s failure to make the Hine development documents available here:  http://bit.ly/19IqahR

Concern over transparency in the development process has been voiced elsewhere.  On September 24, at an economic development roundtable which included a discussion of the Hine development held by Councilmember Muriel Bowser, she pledged her assistance in making the Hine documents public.  Bowser registered a note of resignation about the deal when she said, “Maybe we didn’t get a good deal (on Hine) but we can’t unwind it,” but she also noted that “stepping up the standard of proactive release of documents” would be in the public interest, and offered her assistance to Mary Fraker, who testified on behalf of the Hine coalition, to expedite that process.



Filed under Uncategorized

Hine Coalition Attorney Appeals to Mayor on DMPED’s Failure to Release Documents

Hine Sign

Hine Coalition Attorney Appeals to Mayor on DMPED’s Failure to Release Documents

by Larry Janezich

Last Thursday, Oliver Hall, attorney for the Hine Coalition of residents who are appealing the Zoning Commission’s approval of the Hine project, submitted two filings on behalf of his clients.

The first is an appeal directly to the Mayor regarding the denial of the office of Deputy Mayor for Economic Development (DMPED) of Hall’s FOIA request for documents related to the Hine project.  The filing objects to the failure of DMPED to produce public documents in response to a FOIA request in three instances:  first, its failure to make public contracts available on its website; second, its failure to produce responsive documents; and third, its redaction of portions of public contracts.  All three, the filing says, are violations of DC code.  The letter requests relief from all three and suggests prosecution for any party found to have committed and “arbitrary and capricious violations of the [FOIA].”

The second filing is a letter to the DC Court of Appeals, submitted along with one of the documents Hall was able to obtain from DMPED – a copy of the lease agreement between DMPED and the Hine developers.  The filing states that the lease contradicts information in the Zoning Commission order approving the Hine PUD, specifically that the commission found that SEB would provide public benefits in support of the PUD application including a child care center and financial donations for a playground and the improvement of Eastern Market Metro Plaza, totaling $1,870,455.  In fact, Hall says, the lease allows SEB to deduct this amount from any payments SEB makes to the city under the terms of the lease, meaning that the taxpayers end up footing the bill.

Another developments regarding Hine includes ANC6B Commissioner Brian Pate’s announcement to the ANC6B Transportation Committee last week that, according to the developer, they do not expect to break ground on the Hine project before March, 2014.  The estimate, Pate said, was based on an assumption of a decision rendered in their favor by the US Court of Appeals by the end of this month.  Pate said he thought that timing unlikely.  Pate went on to say that Stanton East Banc has shown no intention to begin environmental remediation, including asbestos removal, before the litigation is resolved, and that remediation must be completed before demolition can begin.

Comments Off on Hine Coalition Attorney Appeals to Mayor on DMPED’s Failure to Release Documents

Filed under Uncategorized

Why Are Neighbors Appealing the Zoning Commission Order on Hine? A Summary and Full Text of the Appeal

Why Are Neighbors Appealing the Zoning Commission Order on Hine?  A Summary and Full Text of the Appeal

by Larry Janezich

Following is a summary of the main points in the appeal of the Zoning Commission order on the Hine Development.  To see the full text of the brief, please open the “Library” page at the top of this home page, and click on the link to open up the pdf.

A group of nearby neighbors of the development petitioned for the appeal and were joined by a neighborhood organization – Eastern Market Metro Community Organization – as an intervener in the case.  They are being represented by attorney Oliver Hall, who filed a similar appeal regarding the West End Library Development on behalf of the D.C. Library Renaissance Project (DCLRP), a library advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader.  As it happens, Stanton partner Eastbanc is the developer of that project.

The DC Court of Appeals has scheduled a hearing on the Hine appeal for mid-September but it could be several months before it hands down an order.  The deadline for transferring the land to Stanton/Eastbanc (SEB) – originally July 13th – was extended for six months by the City Council on Tuesday, July 10, to allow time for the litigation to be resolved and to permit resolution of a technical issue involving discrepancies in the surveys which were used to determine the Hine site property lines.

Summary of main points from the brief:

The Zoning Commission ignored the “obvious” incompatibility of the 94.5 foot seven story building in the community surrounding the project and sanctioned heights and densities double that of surrounding properties.

The Zoning Commission rejected the Comprehensive Plan directive that public property should be retained under public control based on “false assertion that the privatization of a public street does not implicate any of the standards for granting a PUD.’”

Multiple objections to the “affordable housing” provisions, including:

  • SEB’s proposal to segregate the vast majority of affordable housing units in the North building which is designed with considerable fewer amenities than for those in the South Building.
  • Expiration of the segregated affordable housing units in 40 years when they become market rate, resulting in the displacement of occupants and contravening the general policies of the city’s Inclusionary Zoning Regulations.
  • Negligible public benefits and amenities
  • Failure of SEB to disclose to the Zoning Commission that District taxpayers are subsidizing public benefits and amenities including 46 units of affordable housing and the reopening (and privatization) of C Street.  “Based on information provided by DMPED:  deductions will be taken out of all Developer payments to the District for the property based on the Developer’s cost of providing District-mandated affordable housing, demolition of existing structures, environment remediation, construction of the 700 block of C Street, S.E., and any other related public improvements as required by the PUD.  In other words, under the LDDA, District taxpayers – and not Stanton-EastBanc – are to pay for the affordable housing units and the construction of C Street (both of which Stanton-EastBanc will own), as well as any other related public improvements…required by the PUD.   To the best of Petitioners’ knowledge, none of these facts were disclosed during the Commission proceedings.”
  • Lack of justification for transfer of the North Parcel to the developers at far below the market value.
  • Procedural errors involving making a decision based on an incomplete record owing to SEB’s failure to submit both the LDDA and the Covenant SEB is required to execute pursuant to the LDDA to the Zoning Commission.
  • Procedural errors involving SEB’s failure to disclose the value of the development incentives granted to it through the LDDA thus making the Zoning Commission unable to reconcile the relative value of the amenities and benefits vs. the development incentives and any adverse effects.
  • Failure of the Zoning Commission to make any finding of fact to support the change in zoning from R-4 to C-2-B.
  • The Zoning Commission ignored Inclusionary Zoning requirement regarding comparable amenities between market rate units and most of the affordable units
  • The Zoning Commission ignored the need for sufficient justification for the financial reasoning for segregating affordable units, relying only on two informal emails from the Applicant’s banking partners to rule out creating a truly inclusive mixed-income PUD project with permanent affordability as expected by Inclusionary Zoning Regulations.
  • The Zoning Commission’s conclusion about the “29%” of the proffered affordable units being in excess of what is required does not take into account the disappearing affordability for the vast majority of the to-be-constructed affordable units. And because this disappearing affordability largely affects the lower income residents and seniors, this proffered benefit is greatly diminished.


Filed under Uncategorized

City Council Grants Stanton/Eastbanc Six Month Extension of Hine Closing Date

City Council Grants Stanton/Eastbanc Six Month Extension of Hine Closing Date

by Larry Janezich

The City Council passed emergency on Wednesday night granting Stanton/Eastbanc six additional months to close on the Hine project.   The developer was facing a July 13 closing date deadline but owing to at least two major issues, had been unable to fulfill the requirements imposed by the city prior to closing.  Although approvals of the HPRB and the Zoning Commission have been achieved, the developer has not been able to obtain demolition, sheeting and shelving permits and in addition has not been able to secure financing for all development and contractual obligations. 

Councilmember Muriel Bowser, Chair of the Committee on Economic Development, managed the legislation, and said there had been many delays on the project, citing specifically, litigation filed by neighbors before the DC District Court of Appeals appealing the Zoning Commission’s approval of the PUD.

Although the Mayor had requested a one year extension and that request had been endorsed by ANC6B, Bowser offered an amendment to provide a six month extension.  Bowser said that the building on the Hine site was becoming a blight on the neighborhood and implied that the shorter time limit was aimed at encouraging all parties to come to an agreement. 

The Bowser amendment was accepted and the bill providing the extension passed unanimously on a voice vote, with Councilmember Barry recusing himself citing a standard excuse, that he may or may not know principals involved in the project.


Filed under Uncategorized

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:


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


Filed under Uncategorized

Hine Critic Unhappy Wells’ Office Gave Home Phone Number to Developer

Hine Critic Unhappy Wells’ Office Gave Home Phone Number to Developer

by Larry Janezich

Some 20 hours ago, a neighbor of the Hine project tweeted Councilmember Tommy Wells to complain that his office had passed on the critic’s home phone number to Stanton Development, apparently to allow the developer an opportunity to answer the critic’s questions regarding public space in the Hine Development.

The initial tweet below refers to a flyer distributed last Saturday by members of the Eastern Market Metro Community Association.  The flyer urged residents to contact Councilmember Tommy Wells and urge him to support the community’s demands to: “Cut Back the Size of the Development, Don’t Let Retail Overtake Residential Areas, Fight Loss of Open Space, Preserve Space for the Flea Market.”

The series of three tweets are as follows:

Dear Tommy, have u seen this? (photo of flyer attached) Please help rather than giving @Stanton_Dev everyone’s number who calls, like u did me.

And no, @TommyWells and @Stanton_Dev, I did not make the flyers. But most in neighborhood feel dev too big-detraction from @EasternMarketDC

Honestly, neighbors are SHOCKED that you gave @Stanton_Dev my home number because I was curious about public space involved. @TommyWells


Filed under Uncategorized