Development
Taking creative liberties with the Dupont ANC's votes
The Dupont ANC sent its letter to the Board of Zoning Adjustment weighing in on the residential and retail development proposal at 14th and U that the BZA will consider Wednesday. That's the customary process when the ANC has passed a resolution concerning an upcoming hearing. But there's just one problem: the letter, signed by Chairman Ramon Estrada and sent by ANC staff member Freddie Blicher, doesn't actually precisely reflect the Commission's vote last month.
Photo by lawgeek on Flickr.
To make a very long story short, the developers are seeking four variances. The ANC considered them one at a time at its October meeting, and voted on each separately. On three, they voted unanimously to support; on one, as I reported here, they voted 5-3 to "not support" the variance.
The letter, however, presents things slightly differently:
With eight of nine Commissioners in attendance, a quorum at a duly-noticed public meeting, the Commission approved the following three-part motion by a vote of 5-3:No three-part motion was ever introduced. The Commissioners voted on each variance separately, and never all together.
- The ANC hereby approves the area variance requests as presented for the project (a) Lot Occupancy .... (b) Required Public Space ... (c) ARTS Prohibition of Driveways ...
- The ANC hereby opposes ... the request for area variance for (a) Rear Yard ... because ... [detailed legal rationale here]
- The ANC reserves the right to comment on any changes or revisions to the plans and/or BZA application ... and grants the Commissioner of Single Member District 2B09 [Estrada] ... full authority to take all needed action on this project going forward, including negotiations with the owner and preparing testimony before regulatory boards, and any other action required...
Also, most of this language was never read at the meeting. Estrada's motion on the rear yard variance, as introduced, was to "not support" rather than "oppose". The part about granting authority came up, but in only a general discussion, not as the specific language in the letter. Based on my recollection, that portion concerned only the BZA hearing, not all "regulatory boards and any other action required." Finally, the legal rationale for disapproving the rear yard variance summarizes some reasons which were brought up at the meeting, but this level of detail was never part of the actual motion.
Does this matter? After all, if a motion had been introduced comprising all four variances and the part about granting authority, it's fair to say it probably would have passed 5-3; the three who voted against disapproving the rear yard variance would probably have voted no, and the rest yes. But that's not what happened. This letter suggests that ANC opinion was divided on the entire question. In fact, it was united on three of four variances. That misrepresents the sentiment of the ANC to the BZA.
This isn't the first time the ANC's letters don't quite match the discussion at the meetings. The previous month, when the developer was preparing to go before the Historic Preservation Review Board for a trivial modification, Estrada introduced a resolution reiterating the ANC's previous position that the project was too large. As I wrote then, Commissioner Jack Jacobson introduced an amendment saying that, based on the developer's changes over time to accommodate the community and the HPRB, the ANC supports moving the project forward as presented.
Estrada decided to accept Jacobson's amendment as friendly (most likely because of the clear sentiment in the room in favor), and the amended motion passed unanimously. Later, however, no language matching the amendment appeared in the official letter to HPRB. As with this month's, that letter contains detailed language in the motion, none of which was actually read at the meeting. Jacobson said, "The way the letter was written, I wouldn't have voted for it." While the letter makes it seem that all Commissioners agree with the language written there, that's not true.
Estrada has made it clear he doesn't want the 14th and U project to move forward as currently proposed. He's introduced repeated resolutions calling for a smaller project and more setbacks. That's his right, of course, as the duly elected representative of his district. Estrada has effectively advocated for his point of view, and helped reduce the original project's size and mass. But whatever the Chair's personal feelings, an ANC's official letter must reflect the ANC's actual vote, not a slight variant that shades the actual language toward the chair's position.
The burden isn't Estrada's alone. Other ANC commissioners should insist on clearly defined motions, so that they know exactly what they are voting on. When members vote based on some back-and-forth discussion and allow the staff and Chair to craft a motion later, it opens the door to these shifts. When I attended the Adams Morgan ANC, for example, Commissioners brought detailed motions already written out, and any amendments had to be similarly specific. The Dupont ANC follows Robert's Rules of Order at their meetings. They should likewise take seriously their position as a real elected body voting on real motions, and ask for actual language before they take a vote.
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.   |
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- Judge denies injunction against closing schools
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- Metro policy for refunds after delays falls short, riders say
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip
published by the Texas Transportation Institute lists
L.A.-Orange County as having the nation's worst
traffic, followed by the Bay Area, which is tied for
the second worst traffic. The annual average delay
per traveler is more than twice the hours of the New
York-Newark region. Additionally, San Diego had the
nation's sixth worst traffic and the Inland Empire
(Riverside-San Bernardino) ranked 13th.
California is forecasted to have approximately 45
million people by 2025 and will have nearly 60 million
people by 2050. Projects like this are necessary if
the state is to remain a desirable place to live. In
addition to reducing traffic, this will also reduce
auto accidents and will improve air quality. High
speed rail is expensive but all the lost hours people
spend on gridlocked freeways is probably more
expensive.
by Ben on Nov 3, 2008 11:48 am • link • report
ANCs must establish and observe processes and procedures that establish and enshrine transparency. Using ANC meetings to draft and rewrite resolutions is a very delicate operation and must be handled with much care. I know that this is something that many residents are concerned about when they talk about whether their ANC is effective, or respected at city agencies.
I know one ANC that takes great pains to be as transparent as possible, including using a projector to display proposed resolution text and creating audio recordings of all regular meetings that are available to the public. Perhaps this ANC would benefit from a change in leadership so that it won't be 'business as usual' anymore.
by Phil Lepanto on Nov 3, 2008 12:38 pm • link • report
by Lance on Nov 3, 2008 12:40 pm • link • report
by SG on Nov 3, 2008 1:18 pm • link • report
by JulieN on Nov 3, 2008 1:40 pm • link • report
The ANC Commission supports this project and our votes reflect this fact. Over the course of the year, there have been intermittent issues raised in connection with the project which have been resolved. Unfortunately, this is not the best forum for discussion of detailed procedures. However, I can assure you, that I do support this project and as the SMD Commissioner, I am prepared to represent the ANC and my constituents at the upcoming hearing on the variance requests by the developer. Having been elected (and re-elected) for three terms, I have extensive experience serving on the Commission and appearing before regulatory boards on behalf of the community. And this experience is one of the reasons my constituents urged me to seek another term. Clearly, attempts to try to discredit me and/or inaccurately represent ANC matters are part of my opponent's negative campaign.
As always, feel free to contact me at
raestrada2B09@gmail.com. My web pages also include information about this and other development projects.
You can also find out more about the ANC2B at www.dupontcircleanc.net.
Respectively,
Ramon
Ramon Estrada, Chair ANC2B & SMD Commissioner 2B09
www.ramonestrada.org
http://ramonestradaanc2b09.blogspot.com/
by Ramon Estrada on Nov 3, 2008 2:06 pm • link • report
Out of curiosity, what is the right forum to discuss detailed procedures, in your opinion? I think GGW is a great place to delve into the details.
Would you like to post a comment explaining your point of view about these detailed procedures? From my point of view, it seems that while you say you support the project, you still don't support the current design, and want to make it smaller. That's the point of contention. The ANC passed Jacobson's amendment in September saying that the Commission supported the project moving forward as presented, but that didn't make it into the letter.
by David Alpert on Nov 3, 2008 2:43 pm • link • report
The Dupont Circle ANC, as well as most other ANCs throughout the city, often complain that our votes and resolutions are ignored by most Councilmembers and most city agencies. If indeed our actions are being ignored by our Chairman, that is something we will address after careful and thoughtful investigation and deliberation.
Respectfully,
Jack Jacobson
Commissioner, Dupont Circle ANC
by Jack Jacobson on Nov 3, 2008 3:51 pm • link • report
Regarding this stage of the project review you ask about, the height of the building is set by zoning regulations. I am not trying to make the building smaller. If you have studied this project, you know that the design requires zoning variances because it exceeds the limitations set out in the regs, so the owner must meet the three prong test before the BZA. It's the ANC's job to be sure that new development will not adversely affect neighboring properties or be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of persons living, working, or visiting the area.
by Ramon Estrada on Nov 4, 2008 1:52 am • link • report
Ramon, The second half of your statement is absolutely correct. However, I don't know where you got the first half from ... ? to be sure that new development will not adversely affect neighboring properties ??
The specific role of the advisory neighborhood commissions, as defined by the D.C. Election code, includes advising the district government "... on matters of public policy including decisions regarding planning, streets, recreation, social services programs, health, safety, and sanitation in that neighborhood commission area." (D.C. Code, Section 1-251(c)(1))
by Lance on Nov 4, 2008 8:30 am • link • report
by suzy on Nov 4, 2008 2:11 pm • link • report
by suzy on Nov 4, 2008 2:15 pm • link • report
I'm all for keeping an ANC meeting moving, but then when can we talk about the procedural issues? If the ANC meeting has to move quickly, and this isn't the right forum, what is?
suzy: The original proposal by the developers was an all by-right project. The rear yard and entrance court variances are changes requested by HPO to maintain a continuous streetwall, and the community (myself included) prefer the changes. However, they necessitate variances. The front driveway entrance variance responds to neighbor pressure to move the driveway into the front.
Everyone agrees this plan is better than the original, but the developer needs variances because they made these changes to please neighbors. It's disingenuous to then turn around and oppose the variances as a tactic to gain more of a reduction in mass.
by David Alpert on Nov 4, 2008 3:15 pm • link • report
Like I said, understanding that fine line between how far the ANC can go in protecting existing interests is essential in setting the correct tone for discussions. Like you said, no one should be taking issue with what is allowed by right. However, they are doing so .... by being disenngenuous ... as David so aptly illustrated. If the tone is correct, then the possibility of this disingenuousness occurring in the first place is greatly minimized.
by Lance on Nov 4, 2008 3:59 pm • link • report
Incidentally, I should point out that as regards the specific variance issue which David mentions above, I've heard various viewpoints as to whether there the developer is taking more of a compensating variance than need be ... or not. This was probably not the best example for me to point to as an instance of "being disengenuous".
by Lance on Nov 5, 2008 11:39 am • link • report
As you know, the ANC conducts its business before the public at regularly held meetings. There are instances when the ANC facilitates public forums, such as candidate debates (2B has cosponsored several recent, local race debates with Dupont Circle Citizens Association). On the Utopia project, it's my recollection that from the very first presentation the architect and developer told the community that there would be the need for some variances. A couple of the variances were anticipated because of the IZ.
The variance requests shifted until a couple of weeks ago. Yesterday, I testified in favor of the requested variances before the BZA, which unanimously approved the application.
by Ramon Estrada on Nov 6, 2008 8:11 am • link • report
Add a Comment