That said, the letter also outlined concerns about the study and asked for a broadening of the scope.  It focused primarily on the Boulevard, Barney Circle, and an idea floated to place some kind of parking facility for buses below the boulevard.  And, ANC6B asked that the study be guided by 3 principles: protecting residential streets from through traffic, connecting neighborhoods to the waterfront, and adhering to goals in the Sustainable DC Plan.

The ANC6B Letter to DDOT on Barney Circle & SE Boulevard Transportation Planning Study was adopted by a unanimous vote of the Commission on April 9, 2013.

It is time … for anyone living and working on or traveling through Capitol Hill to get involved in the Barney Circle & Southeast Boulevard Transportation Study.  Results may determine how we and others (in vehicles, on bicycles, via transit, and as pedestrians) change the way we move through the neighborhoods, especially once across the Anacostia River via the Sousa Bridge and the new 11th Street Bridges.

One central question of the study is: What will be the impacts (good and bad) of having or not having a road (the SE Boulevard of this study) that enables traffic (again, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, transit …) to flow between 11th Street SE and Barney Circle?  Another important question: What are the impacts (good and bad) of converting the current Barney “Circle” into a proper traffic circle with direct feeds from/onto the proposed boulevard, 17th Street, Kentucky and Pennsylvania Avenues, and possibly Park Road?  A 3rd basic question involves understanding how a revised Barney Circle and a boulevard are related in terms of transportation flow.

And, then, there is the idea to place a “bus terminal/parking lot” under the boulevard.  Does DC need such a facility?  If so, this study has to provide the evidence and rationale for placing it in SE Capitol Hill.  We know that folks in Ivy City are objecting to a proposal for one in their neighborhood and Councilmember-at-Large Vincent Orange issued a press release on February 22 expressing his “joy” at DDOT’s examination of placing one at an “obsolete space of the SW Freeway.”  But, politics should not override careful study.

The Study.  This study is being conducted by DDOT under the rules and format defined by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) because federal funds are involved.  The final output of the study will be an Environmental Assessment (EA) that will include a decision on whether and how to proceed.  At this point, the study timetable calls for an EA to be made public by Summer 2013.  Between now and then, there will be at least 2 public meetings as DDOT and its contractor gather and analyze neighborhood information and transportation data and consider public input.

[If you are not familiar with how NEPA governs such studies, read this guide.  In addition to NEPA, DDOT has to conduct a "Section 106" review of any historic properties in the vicinity of the overall study (such as, in the CH Historic District and the proposed Barney Circle Historic District) and make a determination of "adverse impacts" if any.  Here is a link to a citizen guide to Section 106, which is part of the National Historic Preservation Act.]

DDOT held the first public meeting on the study on February 21st.  The intent of this Scoping meeting was to present the basic framework of the study and to gather input from the public as to what people want and don’t want to evolve from the intensive planning process.  To help get the discussions started, DDOT presented 3 basic concepts.  Each concept map had the same ideas for Barney Circle but presented different alignments for the boulevard.

Some residents living just north of the possible route of a boulevard have taken these concepts to be “done deal” plans.  Not true.  Concepts are concepts … discussion provoking ideas.  We have a long way to go before the end of this process.  Here’s what happens over the next 4-6 months (or more): (1) DDOT will present several alternatives at the next public meeting; suggested designs based on what they have heard at and subsequent to the Scoping meeting. (2) Based on public comments on these alternatives, DDOT will release a draft EA for public comment.  (3) A final public meeting will constitute a hearing on the draft EA.  Following this, DDOT will release the Final Document and Decision.

Then and only then, will there be A Plan.

Throughout this highly structured process, anyone can and everyone should continue to provide their ideas and relay their concerns to DDOT.  This input can be done at the public meetings or by sending an email to <barneycircle@prrbiz.com> or directly via the study website on the Meeting 1 Presentation page.  If you want to be on the mailing list to assure you will know when the public meetings are scheduled, send an email to <ddot.awi@dc.gov> or click the link on the study website home page.

ANC6B will be involved in this process throughout.  The Transportation Committee meeting on March 13 had the topic on its agenda.  It heard from 35 or so residents who live east of 11th Street SE and south of Pennsylvania Avenue.  Some appear to have already formed hard decisions on what the study should conclude.

I, for one, am not making any decisions now on where DDOT ought to end up in this study.  I need considerable more data and information and analyses from DDOT.  And, I want to hear from a wide range of residents and businesses on Capitol Hill not just those who will be most directly affected.  I know from experience that these folks tend to have ardent views and their voices can drown out those with different, just as valid, perspectives.  With thoughtful discussion and analysis, we can design a new improved neighborhood out of a complex piece of land.

So it is not a surprise to me to see that the recent 6B committee votes in support of the Office of Planning’s draft proposal to remove minimum off site parking requirements in certain zoning categories has caused a storm of protest.  Some of it is quite understandable because residents have come to depend on public space to park their cars.  But some of it is off the mark based on a misunderstanding of the proposals.  Some of it is a bit elitist: I’m inside; now shut the door and don’t let anyone else in.  

These new zoning proposals, of which parking is just one of many issues, are intended to set the stage for the next 40 years of development in DC.  We have trouble predicting what technology will be available years ahead to facilitate the movement of people and goods but we do know that we can’t continue to add vehicles to our roads.  Two really good related reasons why: increasing congestion and increasing pollution.  Plus climate change.  So, yes, an objective of some of the proposals is to reduce the impact of vehicles on all of us now and in the future and one way is to make parking them less attractive.

So, the proposals simply remove existing minimums for new developments, be they one house or multiple units in an apartment building.  A large portion of 6B is in the Capitol Hill Historic District.  Nothing changes for this large area under these new parking proposals because historic district residential zones are already exempt from the off site requirement.  In any case, removing minimums does not mean developers won’t provide any off street parking.

But, changing zoning is not enough.  City officials need to do more.  The current Residential Permit Parking system is sorely in need of an overhall.  Why do we let an unlimited number of vehicles per household pay $35 per year for permits to park curbside?  This, when renting an offsite private space might cost $100 or more per month?

We also need to build more attractive, efficient, reliable transit systems.  Under the MoveDC initiative to plan DC transportation 30 years out, maybe we will do that.

Some think I am “anti-auto” because I don’t own a car and, thus, don’t fully understand the frustration of seeking a parking space.  Not true.  I haven’t owned an automobile for over 40 years.  I sold my beloved racing green TR-4 back when I lived at the base of Russian Hill in San Francisco.  One day I realized that I wasn’t moving my car but, rather electing to walk or take transit to where ever I wanted to go because I didn’t want to have to search for a parking space when I returned home.  When I factored in the cost of that car that mainly sat curbside, I sold it.  And, have been car-less since.  I understand frustration.  What I don’t understand is why frustrated DC “parkers” don’t do what I did.  And, I did it long before people dreamed up neat alternatives like Zipcar, Car2Go, Uber, and so on.

I know that everyone can’t give up their automobiles.  But, more could.

If you drive, bike or walk around or through Capitol Hill, get ready for some near- and long-term changes.  And, lots of studying.

We should all be aware of the 11th Street Bridges Project; it has been underway for several years now.  But, what changed in late 2012 and will be ongoing in 2013 and 2014 is a focus of the work on the Capitol Hill side of the Anacostia River.  Once the fourth vehicle lane and a pedestrian/bike lane of the Local 11th Street Bridge is completed in Spring 2013, the bridges themselves will be done.  What then remains is making all the new connections, removing old ones, and converting a portion of the SE Freeway into a boulevard.

The conversion will be fascinating to watch, I think, (it’s a big trench to fill) but cause commuters used to the SE Freeway/Sousa Bridge route between DC and MD some headaches until they learn the new I695 to I295 route via the 11th Street freeway bridge.  Between January 22 & 25, the SE Freeway between 8th Street SE and Barney Circle was reduced to one lane eastbound.  As of January 31, the route will be closed for 18-20 months while the roadway is filled to raise it to local street elevation.  Eventually, there will be an signalized intersection at 11th Street SE.

Linked to the Bridges Project is the upcoming Barney Circle NEPA Environmental Assessment.  Under this EA, the balance of the SE Freeway conversion to a boulevard will be designed and Barney Circle and environs will be redesigned.  Of course, studying and deciding does not constitute “doing” so one of the big questions for all the studies mentioned here is funding availability.  The date of the first public meeting on the Barney Circle project has been set for Thursday 21 February, 630pm to 830pm, at Payne Elementary School, 1445 C Street SE.

Pedestrians who crisscross Pennsylvania and Potomac Avenues and 14th Street SE going to and from the Potomac Metro and the many Metro bus lines, should definitely get involved in the Pennsylvania-Potomac Avenue Intersection Pedestrian Safety Study.  This kicks off with a public meeting on 31 January at Payne Elementary School, 1445 C Street SE, from 630pm to 830pm.  The study of alternatives follows on the heels of previous attempts to solve the problems.  Those who drive through these intersections on a regular basis will also want to know how various options that eventually will be proposed may affect their current routes.  [Update: Presentation materials from January 31 meeting are available on above site.  Officials expect to complete the study by Summer 2013.]

For a year or more, the community has been engaged in the CSX Railroad’s proposed Virginia Avenue Tunnel Project.  CSX is proposing to widen and deepen the existing 100-year old tunnel that runs between 3rd Street to 12th Street SE, basically underneath Virginia Avenue SE and Virginia Avenue Park.  The rationale is to enable CSX to run double-stacked cars through the tunnel in both directions to handle expected increases in freight traffic once the new Panama Canal opens in 2015 or so.

The NEPA process for this VAT project has been underway since September 2011 and rumor has it that a draft EIS (originally scheduled for late 2012) will be released in early 2013.   So far, five public meetings have been held during which construction alternatives have been narrowed down from 10 to 4.  All 4, one of which is a “no-build” alternative, will be fully evaluated in the draft EIS.   Running separately but concurrently with the EIS evaluation is a “Section 106″ process that will evaluate the historic preservation impacts of the construction.  A public meeting will be held on the draft once it is released and everyone will have a period of time (30 days? 45 days?) within which to provide written comments.

Last year ANC6B finally convinced DDOT to “do something” about the pedestrian hazards created by excessive speeding along 17th & 19th Streets SE.  DDOT conducted a 17th & 19th Street Safety Improvement Study and did so in record time over the Summer of 2012 with the participation of many residents.  At the final public meeting in September 2012, participants fully supported the draft conclusions.  ANC6B voted unanimously to support the draft plan at its October 2012 meeting.  Now, the pressure is on to make sure the funding is available to make the many sidewalk, parking, and intersection changes dictated by the study.

More narrowly focused than any of the above is an ANC6B request for DDOT to study vehicle traffic patterns on 4th & 5th Streets SE between East Capitol and Pennsylvania Avenue SE.  The problems here include backups on southbound 4th Street during commute hours that encourage drivers to use 2-way 5th Street, which is not designed as an arterial, as an alternative.  This study is being done by DDOT staff (as opposed to a DDOT contractor) and 6B awaits the results with suggested solutions.

Sometime this year, DDOT will establish a Management of Traffic (MOT) plan for the construction of the Hine project (due to begin in Fall 2013).  This MOT will determine, among other things, truck routes on and off the site and through Capitol Hill, which sidewalks can be closed and under what circumstances, and any road closures.  Along with the directly affected merchants and residents, ANC6B will be involved in the design of the MOT.

Somewhat peripheral to those living within 6B borders but central to SE residents and businesses within 6D and the Capitol Riverfront BID, was a study DDOT conducted in 2012 on along M Street SE/SW.  This study has been completed but is just a preamble to a more detailed NEPA process on transit needs for the area.  Meanwhile, some of the short-term solutions identified in the study may be implemented.

Once people in vehicles get where they are going, they need a parking space. DC’s Department of Transportation has just completed a series of Parking ThinkTanks to gather thoughts from residents and businesses about parking.  The Parking Summit document lists a long catalog of issues; many old but some new.  But, where does DC go next with this?  It is not clear to me at this time.

On top of all this … DC just announced a MoveDC project to “develop a bold and implementation-vision for our city’s transportation future.”  The first public meeting–a MoveDC Idea Exchange–will occur on Saturday 9 February at MLK, Jr. Library from 930am to 300pm.

In the meantime, 6B’s Transportation Committee has identified several issues it may consider in 2013.  Among them are: parking enforcement, sidewalk repairs, the effect of the new 11th Street bridges on traffic within 6B, Bike share stations, and dangerous intersections and speed camera requests.

So, what’s your transportation issue?

Kirsten Won Reelection in Nov 2012 thanks to the help of many people in the community who sent checks, volunteered their time, and spread the word.  I look forward to serving the residents of 6B04 (see map) for another 2 years.

“What’s the Status of the Hine Redevelopment Project?” is probably the most frequent question I get.  And, the short answer is that the historic preservation and zoning reviews are basically completed.  (Details of the final version of the project are here.)  Now, the developers–Stanton East Banc–are negotiating the final financial terms with DC, their architect is drawing up the building plans, and, last I heard, construction will begin in the 3rd Quarter of 2013.  Completion of the complex is estimated to be late 2015.

ANC6B Begins a New Term in January 2013 with 4 newly elected Commissioners joining 6 re-elected Commissioners.  I don’t expect the same fireworks that erupted in January 2011 when 4 new Commissioners joined 6B and created a voting block of 6 that persisted pretty much up until the final vote on Hine in 2012.  This time, even before we begin, I feel a spirit of cooperation prevails.

But … we shall see.

Major Issues in 2013 Abound.  In January 6B is conducting its first round review of the huge proposed revision of the DC zoning regulations.  And, we expect the draft EIS on the CSX Virginia Avenue Tunnel project to land on our laps for review in early 2013.  This spring DDOT ought to be announcing the start of a NEPA Environmental Analysis of the Barney Circle, SE Boulevard, and Potomac Avenue Metro area project.  Sometime in 2013, DDOT will be developing the Traffic Management Plan for the Hine project construction phase.  There will be continuing detours as the Local bridge of the 11th Street Bridges project is completed and the new intersection on 11th Street SE between K and M Streets is created.  We will be evaluating the proposals, sometime in Spring or Summer, for initial development of Reservation 13.

There’s more but I am becoming fatigued just thinking about it.

What About That Expansion of PBP?  Well, Commissioners Garrison, Frishberg, Pate, and Oldenburg are still talking with DDOT on the final details.  The ANC passed the Resolution requesting DDOT to expand the boundaries back in September 2012.  My guess is that we will be half way through 2013 before the new “Zone 6 Only” signs are installed north of Pennsylvania Avenue. [PBP=Performance Based Parking]

In Conclusion: What are your Capitol Hill Issues for 2013? And, what should ANC6B do about them?

I have worked hard to maintain what makes our neighborhood great while embracing all of the exciting changes that have come about. Whether it’s ensuring that we can park on our streets, have responsive businesses that provide valuable services to our community, or reaching a compromise on the development at Hine, I have fought hard to ensure my constituents and our community benefit.  It is also one of greatest rewards to help my fellow neighbors navigate the often complex zoning and other DC government processes that impact our lives.

Early voting starts on October 22nd but there is no voting “satellite” on Capitol Hill in 2012 as there was at Hine in 2010.  To vote early, check out the possible locations on the Board of Elections website.  On Election Day–November 6th–everyone votes at their local precinct.  Most residents of 6B04 will vote at Watkins Elementary School (Precinct 91), Tyler Elementary School (Precinct 90), or Van Ness Elementary School (Precinct 131).  A few, who reside in the most northern blocks of 6B04, will vote at Thankful Baptist Church (Precinct 88).

During October I will be walking throughout the 6B04 neighborhood to talk individually with as many residents as I can.  I look forward to hearing about any issues or concerns you have or ideas about what I should focus on in the next two years.

Meanwhile, my campaign literature Re-Elect Kirsten 2012 has more information on how I approach this important public office and why I am running again.  As this map shows, my single member district borders have changed because of redistricting based on the 2010 Census.

Midway through the evening, the ZC chairperson interrupted the proceedings for an extended 45-minute discussion with all of the parties about the need for a third hearing in order to accommodate all who had asked to testify.  Various options were considered including delaying the third session until the fall and in the end it was decided to hold the third and final hearing on Wednesday, 11 July.  The date of the final session was made possible by the Chair’s decision to change the normal order of these proceedings and hear all of the opponents with “party status” that evening, as one of their witnesses was unable to be present on 11 July.  The Chair announced that only those who had requested to testify by the end of the June 21 hearing would be permitted to speak at the July 11th final meeting.

So, what did happen on the 21^st?  The following testified and were cross examined: the applicant’s transportation expert, DDOT, ANC6B, and the opposing parties with status (Eyes on Hine, Hine School North Neighbors, EMMCA and Diverse Management).  DDOT, whose testimony was delayed from the 14^th so that more data and analysis could be obtained, seemed still not convinced of the need for a garage with 320 parking slots.  But, a deal seems to have been struck on the 55’ truck delivery issue with the final solution to be determined by a public space permitting process during the post-ZC period.  During cross examination, Ms Riehle of EMMCA pressed DDOT on the idea of putting the garage entrance on Pennsylvania Avenue rather than the new C Street.  This idea was pretty fairly shot down by DDOT’s analysis of the traffic and pedestrian safety problems that would ensue and its statement that the one existing in the 600 block of Pennsylvania Avenue would never to approved today.

The ANC was next with Commissioners Frishberg and Pate presenting the ANC’s support in favor of the PUD application (somewhat modified by the MOA between the developer and the ANC).  On balance, given the complexity and multifaceted nature of the Hine project, I feel the two 6B witnesses, who did not speak from a prepared text and instead worked from notes, did a credible job.  However, in my view, some of their presentation veered a bit off course from what the ANC had actually seen and debated.  I was particularly struck by an analysis of the existing Metro Plaza in support of opposition parties desire to restrict retail on a portion of the façade facing the Plaza, an analysis that had never been offered before the ANC.  The ZC complimented the ANC’s presentation (as compared to what they normally hear from ANCs) but only asked a few clarifying questions.

During the opposing parties hour, Marcel LaFollette of Eyes on Hine presentation was eloquent but wrong in its analysis of the impact of the Hine complex on the lives of the residents of the 300 block of 8^th Street SE.  Bill Pate of the Hine School North Neighbors (200 block of 8^th SE) suggested that the North Residential Building be excised from the project in favor of open space.  He did not mention how the loss of 34 affordable units would affect the overall number of such units in the complex, which now stand at 30 percent of the total.  EMMCA presented its written testimony, trying to make the case that what the developer has said were its goals for the project will not be realized by the current design.

Then, Diverse Management (owned by Michael Berman who runs the Sunday flea market on the Hine parking lot) had its presentation.  It consisted of 3 witnesses (that the ZC decided were not “experts”) who discussed the monetary and social value of the existing flea market.  The implication of this testimony being that it all would be lost with the current Hine design but it failed to put this potential loss within the context of what the Hine project and an enlarged Eastern Market weekend operation would generate.  Berman showed his design for a redesigned Hine plaza that would hold 100 tents but, again, failed to identify the impact on the loss of 7-day a week brick and mortar retail or residential units above. None of the opposition testimony generated much comment by the ZC or cross examination.

At about midnight, Session 2 was over.  Part III will resume the hearing with testimony by the Supporting Parties followed by all the individuals who will offer supporting and opposition testimony.  Rebuttal will end this 3^rd session, after which the ZC will debate internally to come up with its decision on the project.  When this decision, in the form of an Order, will be publicly announced is unknown.

NOTE: Several folks have mentioned they did not see me at this Part II hearing.  Right they are, as I watched the entire proceedings from the cool comfort of my home on my laptop.  Also see my previous article on the Hine hearing for information about how to access documents submitted to the ZC.

Three community groups (Eyes on Hine, Hine School North Neighbors, and EMMCA) and Diverse Management (which owns the Sunday flea market operations) were successful in their bids to gain status.  A few others were denied.

Then, Stanton Eastbanc the developer of Hine and the applicant before the ZC was given an hour to present its case. The presentation included testimony by two of the SEB partners, the architect, and the firm that designed the landscaping.  For anyone who has sat through the numerous Hine presentations over the last few years, this ZC one was not much different in content but clearly structured for the purposes of informing the ZC Commissioners.

There was a bit of drama when the lawyer for Diverse Management aggressively grilled the landscape architect during cross examination.  Many of the questions were outright rude and beside the point.  But, DM is fighting for its livelihood as there is no guarantee that once Hine is built and the new Eastern Market legislation is in place that DM or the owner of the Saturday market will be back running a “flea market.”  Most of the vendors could be accommodated but this notion has been lost in the “Save the Flea Market” campaign being waged by the 2 current owners.

Next up to testify was the Office of Planning (OP) who summarized its report.  This report is in basic agreement with plans of the Hine applicant but has a few quirks.  A major one is a recommendation for cantilevering one of the buildings facing the Plaza to enlarge it, an odd design feature that the Historic Preservation Review Board would surely not support.

Donna Scheeder, chair of the Eastern Market Citizen’s Advisory Committee, then testified.  The EMCAC statement focused on the need for parking in the area and did a powerful job of blowing a big hole in the controversy over the size of the Plaza for weekend flea markets.  On parking EMCAC supported the developer’s plan to provide over 300 spaces in the underground garage. On the flea market, EMCAC put the flea markets in context with the rest of the Saturday/Sunday outdoor elements at Eastern Market and with the pending new Eastern Market legislation that will alter the governing structure of the Market.

After some grilling of Ms Scheeder by the DM lawyer, the 1st ZC session on Hine concluded after 4 hours give or take 10 minutes or so.

Note:  All of the prepared statements by witnesses are available on the Zoning Commission’s website under Case # 11-24.  Also available on the website is video of all the sessions.

Including myself, Commissioners Frishberg, Garrison, Flahaven, Metzger, and Pate cast the 6 votes in favor.  Commissioners Campbell, Critchfield, Green, and Glick voted in opposition.  My dilemma on this vote, discussed in “Hine Begins to Wrap Up”, was resolved when changes were made in the MOA over the weekend as I said in my  Statement on Hine at ANC6B June 12 Meeting.

Once the ZC speaks in the form of an order, SEB will negotiate its final agreement with the city, assume ownership of the property, and construction can begin.  SEB has estimated that construction will take 27 months including demolition of the Hine school building, excavation for the underground garage and retail space, and building of the structure.

As the end nears, the volume of the strident voices of the “anti forces” has been increasing. But the blooming of DownSizeHine yard signs seems to have reached a plateau. As someone who has attended countless Hine meetings–ANC and otherwise–over the last 4 years, I must say that listening to constant negativity and the same old arguments can grate on a person. I happily look forward to a summer relieved of “Hine.”

But, while a frustrating period, the last 4 years have also been invigorating. My knowledge about development, historic preservation, and zoning and the processes that govern them has increased immeasurably. I have learned by listening how not to fight against something. I have met and engaged in conversations with many people because of Hine. Many of these discussions revealed how we feel about our Hill and how we perceive its future. The differences abound but we all care about our community. Some simply do not want it to change. Well, in the 25 years I have lived on the Hill, it has changed immensely. More change is inevitable. We may live in a historic district but it has been a long time since it was a Victorian village.

At its critical Planning & Zoning Committee meeting on Tue 5 June, the ANC punted. Lots of discussion, issues placed on the table, but no decisions were made. On Tue 12 June, it is up to the full ANC—as the officially recognized representative of the community–to finally decide what to tell the Zoning Commission about this major change coming to the center of our Hill.

Punting on the 5th was caused partly by the fact that Commissioners did not receive decision documents until 1/2 hour before we were scheduled to meet to vote on Councilmember Wells Eastern Market bill. This gave us no time to review the documents prior to the Hine meeting.  The ANC’s PUD (Planned Unit Development) review process has been problematic throughout. Perhaps it was the overly complex structure the ANC set up. Or, the lack of communication with Commissioners on negotiation details between public meetings. Whatever the cause, we constantly have had to make decisions without full debate as meeting time ran out and/or documents were presented at the last minute. At this stage of the PUD process, one week from the ZC hearing, the ANC ought to be tying up loose ends not making major decisions. Now, as a Commissioner, I am forced to vote next Tuesday up or down on an agreement between the ANC and the developer; a 10-page document with 44 paragraphs plus innumerable “Whereas” clauses.

The whole purpose of any PUD is for a developer to give back to the community in return for being granted a change in zoning that will enable its project. While there are many aspects of the agreement with which I can agree, I find the core element–benefits to the community at large–miniscule. I also feel that denying residents in the affordable units the ability to park a car in the underground garage or curbside to be unfair.  Eighteen of the 44 paragraphs in the agreement deal with transportation issues, most of which will be decided by public space permitting processes after the ZC has spoken. Nine of them are about retail issues that will be covered in a post-ZC Retail Plan that the developer has to submit to the city before the final land transfer occurs. Several others deal with the weekend flea market (and partly overlap with the Wells legislation) or other management issues.

What’s left as true tangible community benefits? A grant of $50,000 to help pay for the redesign of the Metro Plaza, restricted community use of a conference room, and a promise to help fund a 24-infant daycare facility—on or off the site. Another benefit was lost when the developer was convinced to take one floor off the office building component of the complex. (I am a well-known opponent of that “taking”.)

Against stiff opposition from one Commissioner, I and two others have argued that the infant care facility serves a very small segment of the Hill population even if all spaces are used by Hill families rather than parents working in the office building who live elsewhere. As an alternative, we have proposed that the developers fund a children’s playground somewhere on the Hill to benefit all families with children of all ages.  Earlier in the process I proposed that the developer replace the basketball court that used to be in the Hine parking lot area but I lost that vote.  (Note: Community benefits do not have to be located on the development site but can be anywhere within the boundaries of ANC6B.)

ANC6B will not be the only voice speaking to the ZC next week. DDOT has issued a report on traffic issues that is critical of parts of the developer’s analysis. The Office of Planning (OP) issued its required report. This key report basically supports the Hine project as designed but OP came up with a bizarre solution to “Save the Flea Market.” It suggested cantilevering the North Residential Building’s top floors (i.e., setting back the ground floor) to provide additional space in the Plaza. OMG … this is a design nightmare. [Look folks, the flea markets will be just fine. There's the whole 300 block of 7th, the Metro plaza, that triangle of brick in front of Hine, and the large space in the north parcel of the Metro plaza. We need to move on from this issue ... or, at least deal with facts.]

Also in the mix is a report to the ZC from the DC Housing and Community Development that embraces many aspects of the project including the 7-floor height of the office building, and calls for the placement of retail all along the ground floor of the two building segments that face the Metro Plaza. The agency does question some features of the plans for 46 affordable housing units, however.

I–who can react negatively to change–have embraced the changes the Hine Redevelopment Project will bring to our neighborhood. It will provide a surge of energy and liveliness and I look forward to being a part of all. But, my immediate dilemma is whether to vote against the ANC’s position and, thus, the project itself because I do not agree with parts of the “agreement”