ADVISORY
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION 1B
Government
of the District of Columbia
Columbia Heights / LeDroit
Park / Shaw / University Heights
3 June 2004, True Reformer Building, 1200 U Street NW
Attending: Commissioners Guyot,
Spalding, Hammonds, Thomas, Butler, Skinner, Esters, Wright
Absent: Commissioners Houston,
Wilson
Quorum was achieved at
7:40PM. With Commissioner
Glover’s move to Baltimore
the Commission opened nominations for Treasurer. Commissioner Esters was nominated, and
Commissioner Esters agreed that he was willing to serve, and the nomination was
seconded and adopted unanimously (6-0-0).
In the Secretary’s report Commissioner Spalding said that the
Commission’s website is up and beginning to be functional. Agendas for the upcoming meeting will be
posted and updated, and all previous minutes are available. The website, www.anc1b.org, is developing slowly since we
are working with OANC to build a replicable site that other Commissions can
use. Signature petitions for ANC
Commissioners will be available at the Board of Elections and Ethics on August
4th. The Public Welfare
Foundation has asked the Commission to consider starting our monthly meeting at
an earlier time due to the strain on scheduling their cleaning personnel. Commissioner Guyot agreed to an earlier
meeting time, and Commissioners Butler, Esters and Wright also stated that they
could make a 6PM meeting time.
Commissioner Skinner stated that he doesn’t get off work till
seven. Secretary stated that he had
suggested to PWF that the Commission reimburse for the overtime and that if the
Commission agreed he would explore that option. Commissioner Skinner responded that we
should not be spending tax payer dollars when we have a freely available public
building in the Commission’s boundaries. Commissioner Guyot responded that the
True Reformer is an historic building, and the history of this Commissions
involvement in the restoration of the building and support for the PWF and we
should stay in this building.
Commissioner Skinner argued that the business of the Commission is too
important to be moved in consideration of cleaning schedules, and that the 7PM
meeting time was agreed on to best serve our constituents. Commissioner Guyot suggested that a
group of Commissioners meet and negotiate with Larry Kressley directly, and the
Commission agreed to do so. Minutes
of the May meeting were moved, and Commissioner Guyot requested an editorial change
on page 5 changing the word forcibly to forcefully, and the Secretary agreed to
do so, and the revised minutes were adopted unanimously (8-0-0). With the new Treasurer’s
permission, Commissioner Spalding gave the Treasurer’s report. All of the checks approved at the May
meeting were prepared by Commissioner Glover, and have been delivered to
recipients. There is no activity in
the account for the previous month, and the balance remains the same as last
month at $108,007.35. The Secretary
has submitted expenses for postage, ink and paper for a total of $110.97 with
matching attached receipts, and reimbursement was moved seconded and adopted
(8-0-0). The Treasurer’s
report was moved seconded and adopted (8-0-0).
In Community Events and
Announcements Deborah Johnson from Howard
University reminded
people about the National Youth Sports Program, its schedule, and had
application forms available.
Andrew Lightman from Capital
Community News and publisher of DC North is preparing to do a community guide
for the mid city area. For the past
ten years they have published an annual guide for the Capital Hill area,
covering the nuts and bolts of living in the city. Mr. Lightman stated that the annual
guide has been so thorough and helpful that most people living on the Hill keep
it with their phone books.
Twenty-five to thirty thousand copies of the annual mid city guide will
be published and home delivered.
Chairperson Thomas asked who they would be using to get the names of the
numerous nonprofit organizations, youth clubs, and smaller organizations, and
Mr. Lightfoot responded that an editor would be seeking the help of community
organizations and ANC’s to help identify organizations. This guide will cover several distinct
neighborhoods Shaw, LeDroit, Bloomingdale, Logan,
Mt.
Vernon Square; essentially everything north of Mass. Ave, east of 16th
St., west of North Capitol, and south of Florida Ave but including Howard
University. Commissioner Skinner
asked if Pleasant Plains would be included, and Mr. Lightman said that it would
not be in this guide, but will be included in their next effort including Columbia Heights.
Pedro Alfonso introduced the
development, and associated ballot initiative, planned for a fourteen acre
tract on New York Avenue. Mr. Alfonso stated that he is chairing
the committee that is proposing the initiative. Mr. Alfonso presented renderings of the
development, and explained that the site would be the location of an expansion
of the DC Lottery. A large
entertainment complex would be built, with movie theatres, concert venues, a
marquis hotel, restaurants, bowling alleys, and a large complex controlled by
the lottery that will include video lottery technology. We’re using the initiative process
since this entail expanding the DC Lottery. This project is expected to generate
fifteen hundred jobs, and revitalize the New York Avenue corridor. Chairperson Thomas asked if this was a
presentation, and Mr. Alfonso responded that they were trying to inform the
citizens of their plans by presenting before ANC’s. Commissioner Guyot stated that Mr.
Alfonso was appearing before ANC1B because he had invited him to appear. There will be a hearing on Wednesday
morning to get to the merits of whether or not this should be allowed to appear
as a referendum item. We’re
talking about jobs, we’re not talking about slot machines, we’re
not talking about dice or cards, we’re not talking about racetrack, and
we’re talking about a lottery that was created by an initiative being
expanded to another initiative that will create more money, more jobs and a
beautiful place for people to recreate.
It will be family oriented and I have a resolution supporting it, and
I’d like to be the one to represent the Commission at the Wednesday
hearing. Chairperson Thomas asked
why we should be supporting this now if more information will be available
shortly, and Commissioner Guyot responded that what we have here is a
fundamental challenge; there were a lot of people there to support it, and a
lot of people who were there to make the ecclesiastical, moralistic formulated
argument. That’s not the role
of government. This is about the
function of government to provide service to the people who create it and whose
taxes pay them. This is a form of
revenue that if we don’t want to compete we can simply watch our money
ride over to Delaware or Atlantic City. I don’t know of a church that
hasn’t sent a bus to Atlantic
City; now let’s send them to New York Avenue. Commissioner Esters asked for the
difference between a video lottery terminal and a slot machine, and Mr. Alfonso
responded that with slots you are playing against the house or the machine, and
with vlt’s you’re betting against other people within that
system. Clyde Howard stated that he
hasn’t heard any specifics on parking, and New York Avenue can barely handle the
traffic now, how would the extra traffic generated by this development be
handled? Mr. Howard also asked how
the limited capacity concert venues could generate funds, and also that there
are no banquet facilities that seem adequate to handle the size crowds
required. Mr. Howard also stated
that he does not want this to be like Atlantic
City where the monies disappeared, where the
development was supposed to help the immediate community and it did not. Mr. Alfonso responded that there would
be underground parking with a capacity for three thousand cars, there is a
banquet hall that will hold three thousand people, and the concert venues might
not be able to accommodate the countries top acts, but the smaller venues will
attract talent. Mr. Howard stated
that whenever the words “new jobs” are mentioned the citizens go
into spasms, and I’m asking how much of this promise will be comprised of
imported labor and how many jobs will actually go to people here in DC? The same promises were made at the MCI Center
and the new Convention Center, and the promised jobs never appeared. Mr. Alfonso responded that he was
formerly head of the DC Chamber of Commerce, and one of the first things that
our organization did was to sign a ‘mou’ with the minority business
coalition. Since this is a $500
million dollar project there will be a number of investors, but we have
insisted on the use of minority contractors both in the construction and
operations of the facility. A
constituent asked why this was being presented before ANC1B, and Commissioner
Guyot responded that it was because he was invited. Mr. Alfonso said that they were reaching
out to explain their development, and the constituent asked what other ANC’s
were scheduled for this presentation.
Mr. Alfonso responded that they would probably present in each ward, and
they had started in ward five. The
constituent asked why they are taking so much time from important ANC meeting
times, and asked why they’re not meeting with community groups and associations
instead. Mr. Alfonso responded that
it’s better than if we didn’t try to get the word out to the
communities and everyone says ‘no one talked to us about it.’ An official from the DC Lottery
explained that this was an opportunity to expand their options. Mr. Guyot stated that his concern was
that this is a straight up or down vote to put this on the ballot. Mr. Guyot presented a previously
prepared resolution supporting the “Lottery Expansion Initiative Act of
2004”, and it was seconded and adopted on a vote of (4-3-1). Commissioner Guyot stated we passed,
praise the lord and pass the whatchamacallit, and asked the Commission to allow
him to represent the Commission at the hearing next Wednesday, and it was
seconded and approved (6-0-2).
Architect Greg Zahn appeared to
present plans for conceptual review for this months Historic Preservation
Review Board on a project located at 1901
6th St., and 531 T St. Commissioner Guyot requested that the
Commission not hear the presentation since he just got the plans on May 28th. Mr. Guyot moved that this be sent back
for review by the LeDroit Park Civic Association. Everything we’ve done in zoning
we’ve done it in conjunction with the LPCA. That is the way we do this, so we
don’t have to waste any time on this, I vote that we send them back to
the LPCA. They should hold a
special meeting just for this issue, and then and only then will we consider
it. Chairperson Thomas asked if
they were before the HPRB this month, and Commissioner Guyot responded that he
didn’t care what they’re in front of, this is not the first time
that Zahn’s done this. They
did this on 9th St.
and they did it to me, then they did it Norman Woods, then they went to HPRB
and they sent them back to Norman Woods.
Now, how many times do you have to be slapped in the face? I’ve got people I have to
represent. Chairperson Thomas asked
if any neighbors were present, and an abutting property owner was present and
asked to hear the presentation.
Commissioner Guyot said that he wants the community of LeDroit Park
to see this, and I will be bound by the vote of the LPCA. The abutting property owners asked why
those who had come out to this meeting would not be allowed to see the
presentation, and Commissioner Skinner stated that the protocol is that if the
LPCA is the civic association with jurisdiction then this is how it takes
place. Out of respect for you and
your neighbors, that is the first body that you present it to. This doesn’t preclude this from
being shown here, but developers should be taking their designs to the
neighbors before showing up here.
The abutting neighbor asked that the presentation take place and their
concerns be heard. Commissioner
Guyot stated that he represents two thousand people, and I’m not going to
be so nice as to allow any two people to substitute for that number. And if I’m sounding crass I want
to be crass, and the issue here is that there is a process that has been
directly abrogated and that process would provide all the answers you could possibly
want. Out of respect for the people
that I represent I’m sending this back to the LPCA so they’ll have
a vote on this issue. Myla Moss,
President of the LPCA, noted that the next meeting would be held on June 22nd
and invited everyone to come, but asked that the plans be presented
tonight. Commissioner Guyot asked
for a vote on his motion, and abutting neighbors stated that they are not
opposed to the motion but they would like to see the plans tonight. Commissioner Guyot responded that its
here tonight and it will be seen but it’s not on this agenda if I have
any power to get it off. Let that
be clear I’m not going to allow this kind of transgression of the
jurisdiction of this ANC and the LPCA.
I’ll say this, that Zahn can make a presentation to an ANC1B01
meeting next Friday night.
Neighbors repeated that they don’t care what the motion or vote
is, they want to see the plans tonight.
Commissioner Guyot responded that he has no choice; he’s willing
to hold a meeting for the residents of the LPCA area next week. Scott Pomeroy interjected that the
Commission was taking a lot of time discussing this; however, the neighbors
would like to see the presentation.
Why not make it possible for those who came out to see the presentation
to meet with the architect tonight outside of the ANC meeting. Commissioner Guyot then withdrew his
motion and asked the Chairperson to give five minutes for the
presentation. Mr. Zahn apologized
to the neighbors for not getting the drawings to them earlier; however, they
finished them today for tonight’s presentation. Mr. Zahn also addressed the 9th St.
project, which changed architects and was not in his control. Mr. Zahn then admitted that he was
confused about the rules, since the 11th
Street project that they took first to the Cardozo
Shaw Neighborhood Association and were chastised by the Commission for not
coming to ANC1B first. The
regulations in place with DCRA and HPRB say to come to the ANC first, and
we’re getting a very mixed message from this ANC. Commissioner Guyot responded that that
was a lie, a flat lie. Mr. Zahn
described the historic duplex building and the lot. The original property had a large
carriage house which is not longer present, and most of the south and east
facades have been removed or significantly changed. In initial work with OHP they are
proposing to restore the original bay front, and a small addition in keeping
with the main house. They are also
proposing an addition to the rear with an attached carriage house. Elevations of the proposal were shown,
and Mr. Zahn asked for any questions.
A number of questions about the proposed parking were posed and
answered. Commissioner Esters asked
if this would be apartments, and Mr. Zahn responded that the plans reflect
eight to ten apartments.
Commissioner Esters asked if there would be any zoning variances
required, and Mr. Zahn responded that it would be matter of right based on the
R4 allowance of units per nine hundred square feet of lot area (and the lot
would allow up to eighteen units).
Clyde Howard stated that this is Odessa Madre’s house, and it
ought to be saved. Odessa Madre was
a notorious madam here in DC in the 1940’s. Odessa Madre controlled prostitutes all
across this city and this was one of her houses. Mr. Zahn responded that they are not
tearing the house down; they are renovating it in concert with the Office of
Historic Preservation staff’s guidance. Chairperson Thomas indicated that the
allowed time had expired and suggested that those interested could continue outside
of the room.
Commissioner Spalding reviewed
Board for the Condemnation of Insanitary Buildings (BCIB) Case No. 04-171
located at 1461 Florida Avenue. This notice arrived after our last
meeting, and Commissioner Spalding requested that the Board allow the
Commission to comment. At the
hearing both the owner and the architect were present. This inside row house has been reviewed
by OHP, but changes in the construction caused a stop work last fall. Adjoining property owners were contacted
by Commissioner Spalding, and their comments were relayed to the Board. The immediate concern is over shoring at
the back of the property, and securing the front east entry. Both were addressed by the owner, and
Inspector Cherry agreed to work with them through permitting to get proper
shoring in place. Owner is prepared
to continue work on the building, and Inspector Cherry has agreed to monitor
their progress. Commissioner
Spalding moved that the Commission support the actions of the BCIB in Case No.
04- 171 and it was seconded and adopted unanimously (8-0-0).
Chairperson Thomas stated that
she has spoken with the owner (George Galisch) of 1321 V St.
(BCIB Case No. 04-168) who was waiting for the Board to inspect this coming
week. She received an assurance
from Mr. Galisch that he would work on the roof that is threatening the
neighboring property. Commissioner
Spalding stated that the Board was very strict with Mr. Galisch, since they are
aware that he also owns five other properties in this twelve house row, and
three others that are currently vacant and abandoned and will be coming up on
the Board’s calendar. The
Board instructed Mr. Galisch that no delays would be allowed, that he would
have to do any necessary roof work, any necessary repairs to the floors and
stairs to ensure safety personnel’s security, secure the buildings, and
make them clean and presentable.
These are relatively standard demands from the Board, but they also
indicated that they wanted these changes to happen quickly. Commissioner Spalding moved that ANC1B
support the actions taken by the BCIB in Case No. 04- 168 and it was seconded
and adopted unanimously (8-0-0).
Commissioner Butler introduced
discussion of the Traffic Control Plan (TCP) for the Bozutto development
located at 1453 Belmont Street. Commissioner Butler stated
that Bozutto has been in contact with the neighbors regularly. Developer reviewed the plans for the
project, and indicated that truck traffic would be entering off 14th
St., would then be
queuing on site, and exiting via 15th
St.
They are also pursuing a ground lease for the parcel at the corner of 14th
and Belmont to
be used for parking both neighbor’s vehicles and worker vehicles. Commissioner Spalding asked if they have
secured a back up site for worker parking if the ground lease does not happen,
and developer responded that they do hope to park on site through most of the
construction process. Commissioner
Esters asked about control of the possible ground lease area, and developer
responded that it would not be public parking but reserved with a tag system
for neighbors inconvenienced by the site work. Commissioner Wright asked about the
duration of the project, and developer responded that once ground was broken it
would be a two year target. A resident
of Chapin Street
voiced concern over the use of the NCRC parcel and the history of abandoned
cars on the lot, and developer responded that the lot would be secured and
monitored, and they would have to exit if the parcel reached development stage. Scott Pomeroy reminded developer of the
community concern with idling vehicles.
Commissioner Butler moved approval of Bozutto’s TCP with Mr.
Pomeroy’s comment as a friendly amendment, and it was seconded and
adopted unanimously (8-0-0).
TCP for 1421 Chapin Street was introduced by
Commissioner Butler, and architect Greg Zahn explained that it is a renovation
project, but that water/sewer/gas cuts and redoing a retaining wall would
require that the sidewalk and parking lane be used. A neighbor expressed concern with the
replacement of the tree box and restoring the sidewalk after the project. Commissioner Butler expressed concern
with clay running from the construction site and asked if some straw could be
used to slow the erosion. Mr. Zahn
proposed suggesting to the contractor that a sidewalk passageway be kept open
as often and as long as possible.
Commissioner Butler moved approval of the TCP for 1421 Chapin St.,
and it was seconded and adopted on a vote of (7-0-1).
Public Space application for pay telephone
service at 2250 Sherman Avenue
was discussed. Commissioner Hammond
initiated a lengthy discussion over the exact location, and Commissioner
Skinner indicated that it was a very hot location. Commissioner added that between the
activities at the liquor store, Garfield Terrace and MacDonald’s
it’s a questionable location for adding a pay phone. Commissioner Hammonds moved opposition
to the application for pay telephone service at 2250 Sherman Ave., and it was seconded
and adopted unanimously (8-0-0).
Commissioner Spalding reviewed
ABRA application No. 70446, Vermont Vision LLC, for a new nightclub CN license
to be located at 2106 Vermont Ave. Applicant was not present. Commissioner Butler asked if this was
the application near Garnet Patterson, and Commissioner Spalding agreed that it
was, and Commissioner Butler suggested tabling the application until the
applicant meets with the administration at Garnet Patterson since it’s
just across the street.
Commissioner Guyot stated that we should not vote that draconian method,
let’s be clear, I don’t know of any law that gives a school the
right to determine whether or not a liquor establishment is going to be in its
vicinity. Let me give you an
example, there’s a liquor store across the street from Marie Reed, and it
has been there and been there and been there. Now if we’re going to have unequal
application of policy, then that’s something new to me for this
Commission. Now there was this same
strategy was used on 1919 9th St.,
and the same strategy was used on 1930
9th St. and low and behold the schools
in question were beyond 400 feet.
So, what are we talking about here, where is the law on which this is
based. Commissioner Spalding cited
DC Official Code Division V. Local Business Affairs, Title 25, Alcoholic
Beverage Regulation, Chapter 3 Requirements to qualify for license, Subchapter
2 Qualification of Establishment, text (b) (1) No license shall be issued for
any establishment within 400 feet of a public, private, or parochial primary, elementary,
or high school; college or university; or recreation area operated by the DC
Department of Recreation.
Commissioner Guyot stated that he now sees this in a different light,
what you’re saying is you want them to go negotiate with Garnet Patterson. Commissioner Spalding responded that he
met with applicant a month and a half ago and the only request made was that
they determine the distance from Garnet Patterson and meet with the
administration, and since that time they have not met with the administration
of the school and in their ABRA application list the distance as five-hundred
and twenty-eight feet. Commissioner
Skinner asked how far away they are, and Commissioner Spalding produced a photo
showing him holding one end of a one-hundred foot tape and Craig MacIvor
holding the other end while standing in front of Garnet Patterson. Commissioner Spalding added that this is
an application for a new nightclub license, and it is really important that we
have applicant present to describe the nature of the business. Chairperson Thomas said that this is her
old neighborhood and there’s no place to park. Commissioner Spalding stated that when
ANC1B has not taken action on an application, ABRA has interpreted that as our
having no comment to offer on the application. Commissioner Guyot suggested supporting
the application contingent on a written agreement with Garnet Patterson
School. Commissioner Butler reinforced the
difficulty in parking near Garnet Patterson. Commissioner Skinner responded that if
their business plan is based on no parking, then we shouldn’t prevent
them from opening their business.
Chairperson Thomas responded that when you add this much demand for
parking it has a large impact on residents that already live there. I drive, and when I come home to 14th
and W there’s just no place to park.
Every new business should be held accountable to some degree for
providing parking. Commissioner
Skinner responded that if the business owner thinks they can open the business
and not provide parking, then they should be allowed to try. The ability to have a liquor license and
the parking question are two different things. Commissioner Spalding responded that on
the ABRA application they are specifically asked to provide a detailed answer
on parking, and in this case the answer was “There are several parking
garages in the area.” I just
don’t think this is an appropriately detailed answer to the question. Commissioner Skinner responded that no
one would be able to get a liquor license in this area because there’s so
little parking. Commissioner Esters
stated that if the applicant stated that they are 528 feet from the school and
they are not, then that should be a governing factor for us. If they are going to lie about this and
then not show, then why should we support them? Scott Pomeroy added that nightclubs
serve a much higher density of people, so the consideration of parking with a
CN license is a more important consideration than with restaurant
licenses. Clyde Howard stated that
the law is pretty straight forward, and if they are less than 400 feet an
agreement with the school would not absolve them from the distance rule. Either you comply with the law or you
don’t.
Commissioner Guyot said that we
should never ever fall into the trap of taking the prerogatives and
responsibilities of the ABC Board, when somebody submits a lie to them
it’s their fault, and the ABC Board should hold them responsible for
it. When we go to the question of
investigating applications we’ve then moved into an area that is converse
to what has been the tradition of this Commission. We’ve always said to everyone who
comes to us that we want you to rigidly enforce the ABC Board laws. We want you to operate your place as
though there’s an ABC agent in it.
Let’s be clear now, I don’t have a problem with advocacy,
but I do have a problem with us dealing in the internal affairs of ABRA. Am I saying that applicants should have
the right to lie to us, they didn’t lie to us they lied to ABRA, and ABRA
has a responsibility to deal with it, and that’s what they have
investigators for. Commissioner
Skinner pointed out that the Commission has been shown an inconsistency in the
information about the distance from the school, and we have a responsibility to
address this. I’m saying that
if they’re lying like that then I can’t see how we can support
them. Commissioner Spalding stated
that it’s not what one Commissioner says, or even what the Commission
says that will be the ultimate deciding factor in what decision the ABRA board
makes on any particular application.
If we oppose this license that does not mean that they will not get
their license. If we support this
license that does not mean that they are guaranteed to get a license. In this case the applicant is not here,
there are numerous questions left unanswered. Commissioner Spalding moved opposition
to ABRA application No. 70446, on the basis of the distance from Garnet Patterson
School, the inadequate
answers in their application to the parking and appropriateness standards. Commissioner Guyot objected. Motion was seconded. Commissioner Guyot said that this is the
same Commissioner who said to 1919
9th St. and 1930 9th St. go talk to the
people at Cleveland
Elementary School. This is the same Commissioner who now
says they didn’t have to because it’s beyond that, but he treated
it as though it was. Now he says we
don’t care if you talk to them or not, you’re too close, therefore,
we’re going to use that as a basis.
Earlier in this meeting he said that he had recommended that they go
talk to Garnet Patterson, which is an admirable position, which, once he read
the law to me, I joined in it. Now
he says let’s oppose this applicant because it’s too close to the
school. A moving target is never
hit gentlemen and ladies. I hope
that we would stand neutral on this case and we have a right to do that. Commissioner Spalding responded by
reasserting that staying neutral has hurt our ability to influence the ABRA
Board in our past dealings with absent applicants, and that if we do not take a
position either in support or opposition the reaction at the ABRA Board will be
that ANC1B did not consider the application. We will be present through this process,
and if conditions have changed before or during the hearings we can address
them, but not if our concerns are reduced to a lack of concern. Commissioner Skinner asked what response
the owners had when first alerted to the proximity of the school, and
Commissioner Spalding replied that they were unaware of the school, but would
speak with the administrator.
Commissioner Guyot moved to table, and stated that that motion takes
precedence, and Commissioner Skinner seconded. Commissioner Skinner asked when the
hearing was to be held, and Commissioner Spalding responded that it’s in
ten days and that tabling the motion might jeopardize our standing. Commissioner Guyot responded that that
is why he wants to table it. My concern
is very clear; I don’t want us to deal with it. I don’t want a vote against
someone who’s not here. I
don’t want a vote against someone who can’t testify. I don’t know what they’ve
done to ameliorate the problems and the inconsistencies. How can I know? How can anyone know? Commissioner Esters asked why they
aren’t here to respond, and Commissioner Guyot reluctantly and shame
facedly withdrew his motion to table.
Motion to oppose was moved and adopted on a vote of (7-1-0).
Commissioner Spalding introduced
ABRA application 50121, a substantial change for U Turn located at 1101 U St. The request is to change the license
class from restaurant CR to Tavern
CT, and to increase the seating capacity upstairs,
and to extend their hours to the full ABRA allowance. Mr. Pappas and the owners were
present. Commissioner Spalding reviewed
their application in March of 2003 for a restaurant license and an expansion
into the ground floor of the building which was supported by ANC1B, and their
return in February of 2004 to report on a shooting at the restaurant. In this request they have asked to increase
the seating upstairs from 45 to 63 seats.
Mr. Pappas stated that they want to go from a restaurant license to a
tavern license. Chairperson Thomas
asked for the difference in the CR and CT licenses, and Commissioner Spalding
responded that the requirement for food sales was decreased in a CT
license. Owner stated that they
were having difficulty competing with the nearby restaurants. Commissioner Guyot stated that that
corner was a tough place to do business.
Commissioner Guyot asked if they had any ABRA violations, and owners
responded that they had not.
Commissioner Spalding indicated that he had a number of problems with
this license and this request to essentially upgrade the license. You came before this Commission in March
of 2003 and specifically stated that you wanted to expand into the bottom floor
and run a restaurant. After the
shooting you came to my house, and you asked what you can do, and in turn I
asked what you wanted to do with the space, and you responded that you were
finally going to finish up the ground floor and be a restaurant. And I asked you to clean the
façade and put a menu in the window in order to identify your business
as a restaurant. Then in February
of 2003 you came back before this Commission and you were asked what you were
going to do, and you said that you were going to be a restaurant. I have asked most of the people who live
on 11th Street
in the 1900 and 1800 blocks, and also those who live in the flanking blocks
what their perception is of your business.
This should be fairly easy, because when you walk down U Street you pass
Dukem which is obviously a restaurant, then you pass Madjet which is obviously
a restaurant, then you come to your property, then you turn the corner at 11th
and you pass La Casona which is obviously a restaurant, and then you see 11
Market which is obviously a convenience store that sells liquor. When I asked the local residents what
was in the building at the corner of 11th and U, the only response
that I got was nightclub. No one in
the neighborhood told me that your business was a restaurant. I decided to try to figure out what you
were serving, so I looked online and I couldn’t find a review of the food
anywhere. I did find a lot of
material about what was going on inside your building, and not one reference to
food. Every reference to your
business was either nightclub or club.
I have concluded that this has been operating as a club for a lengthy
period of time, and has never operated as a restaurant, and the investigations
that have been done by ABRA will back up this view. Why should this Commission vote to give
you a less restrictive license when you’ve been doing so outside of the
business design that you twice told this Commission you would run? Mr. Pappas explained that the reason
that the ground floor windows were covered with newspapers for the past sixteen
months was for safety so nobody would break in there at night. You’ve got to understand that
these are small business people who don’t have a whole lot of money to
work with. They’re
trying. Commissioner Spalding asked
Mr. Pappas if they were going to continue to have their façade windows
covered with newspapers, and Mr. Pappas said no they took them off this
week. Owner said that from six
o’clock or seven o’clock in the morning they try to sell food. Commissioner Guyot stated that he had
eaten in that restaurant, and I’ve taken people there and paid for their
dinner there. Has the ABC Board
told you that you’re doing anything wrong, and applicant responded no
they’ve come by to check but they’ve never found anything
wrong. Commissioner Esters said
that when he goes by this business there are things, that when I see in other
restaurants, I don’t see in your restaurant. One, you have the newspapers in the window
so it’s not an inviting environment for people to enter, and there is no
posting of a menu so I don’t know what kind of food you serve, and what
price range the restaurant charges.
I’m not in the single member district, but I’ve gotten
complaints from my constituents about your business from people I know who live
in the area. Why is it that the
neighborhood has this perception that you operate as a nightclub and not a
restaurant? Why is it that when
I’ve passed your building I’ve never seen the business open? Owners responded it is because they have
not finished the ground floor and the business is on the second floor. Commissioner Esters asked what their hours
of operation were, and owners responded that they’re open in the
evening. Commissioner Esters asked
again why their neighbors all perceive the business as a club, and owners had
no answer. Commissioner Skinner
said that it seems that the restaurant was not succeeding and they’re
asking to try to make the business work as a tavern. As much as the people on this dais want
to pretend that they are restaurateurs, they’re not. If you don’t want to put a menu
outside your business, thank god this is America. If you don’t have the money to
make your façade look like Connecticut
Avenue, or you’re waiting for façade
improvement money I understand that too.
We’re missing the point, and you’re saying to better operate
you need the opportunity to be a tavern.
You have neighbors who don’t frequent your establishment because
they don’t like the way you conduct business, but you have not been
unlawful. I think it’s our
job to give you the opportunity to succeed. It’s your prerogative to be the
kind of business you want to be.
It’s very difficult for me to sit here and listen to the fact that
you haven’t broken any of these laws as it relates to you’ve been
in operation, and you’re a small business trying to make it, and
you’re coming here, and we’ve seen you before. Actually you said you’ve reached
out to Commissioners in the past to create a dialogue. If its best for your business to operate
lawfully as well as be successful and maybe you can expand and one day have a
digitized menu outside with neon lights and live remote radios that might
create more business. Scott Pomeroy
asked specifically about the physical structure itself. I was at Bohemian Caverns one night when
you had a live band playing upstairs, and all the windows were open at that
time. When officials came to
investigate the noise violations, the report indicated that the electrical
system in the building could not meet both the demands of the bands sound
system and the air conditioning system at the same time. Has this been upgraded? Mr. Pomeroy reminded them that if their
air conditioning system was not working, that they then had to be careful not
to open the windows and disturb the community. Susan Ousley said that she was troubled
by the covering of the windows with newspapers for safety, which is exactly the
opposite of being good neighbors.
Ms. Ousley also said that it should not be an instant fallback, that if
a business can’t make it we should let them sell liquor. We need to strive for a more balanced
neighborhood with opportunities other than liquor. Commissioner Spalding asked about the
request to expand the seating on the top floor, but had not seen any drawings
in the ABRA application to illustrate how you would accommodate the increased
occupancy. When I looked at the
drawings you presented in your early 2003 application the seating on the top
floor appeared cramped, and I’m wondering whether you can prove that
there’s adequate space for the increased occupancy, and whether you have
adequately planned for emergency escape for the increased capacity. Owner responded that upstairs is a very
big space. Commissioner Spalding
suggested that when asking for increased capacity that the applicant provide
drawings to ABRA and the Commission to show how this will be accommodated
safely. Commissioner Spalding
reminded the Commission that the applicant has been before us twice before and
directly stated that their business was an Ethiopian restaurant. I’ve searched clippings and online
to determine what has been going on in this business over the past eighteen
months. I found nothing about
food. I did find regular descriptions
of the business as a club with details on the admissions charges. Here’s an illustration of the
advertisement of one night at U Turn “Industrial, Rubber/Latex Fetish
dance party. Cover $5 if
you’re dressed, means fetish gear or, at a minimum, basic black. All other pay $10, 21 and over,
80s-style industrial, Goth Friday: 9PM – 3AM Fashion shows, whipping
demonstrations, toe licking and other displays from the world of S&M. Not recommended for the weak
hearted. Happening every Friday
Night @ U Turn, 1942 11th St. NW DC on the corner of 11th
and U (Diagonally across from Bohemian Caverns) 9PM to 3AM, 18 to enter 21 to
drink.” This does not sound
like any of the Ethiopian restaurants that I’ve had the pleasure of
eating at. It’s also
interesting that U Turn’s patrons have been attending and commenting on
our ANC meetings “There were primarily 2 council members that did the
majority of the talking. This is a
club and we want it to stay a club, we like it as a club. All we’ve got to do is tell the ANC
it’s a restaurant and the big guy and the guy down at the end will go
along with us.” My contention
is that this is not a restaurant, they came and asked us for a restaurant
license and we approved that license request, and they have not been performing
as a restaurant. I don’t
condone this disregard for the license that we extended, and I move that we
oppose this application for changes to U Turn including the change to a CT
license, the increased seating, and the extended hours. Commissioner Guyot said that as soon as
that foolishness gets a second I want to oppose it. This is a vote on the
merits. I think we should give
these people what they’re asking for. I think we’ve seen enough of a
personal attack on them and people like them, and let me give you an
example. I want to carry you down
to 9th Street. 1919 9th Street is challenged
when this Commission voted for it.
1930 across the street is not being challenged, and the big guy that he
referred to represents 1919 9th, and he represents 1930 9th St. I can’t get a better example than
that ladies and gentlemen. I want
us to go on record saying we’re not going to be a part of the
characterization and the dehumanization that goes on with people who have
liquor licenses who are not the right color. I want it clear up and down that we
support this applicant and his menu will be posted conspicuously outside his
building. Commissioner Esters said
that this applicant is licensed as a restaurant and they have been operating as
a nightclub, for us to support their application would be rewarding a business
that has gone before this Commission and the ABRA Board and said that they were
one thing, but have operated as another thing. Why is it that we should reward a
business for operating outside of their license? Shouldn’t we require, and
isn’t it our responsibility, to require that businesses that come before
us do what they tell us they are going to do? And, if they don’t do that then
should we give them a reward in the form of expanding their license? Commissioner Skinner stated that
we’re mixing something up, and I think that’s because people
don’t frequent restaurants, haven’t been to a business before. All I’ve heard is an attack on
certain lifestyles, now I’m an active out of the closet heterosexual. I’ve never participated in
homosexuality. My point is that if
somebody decides they’re going to have a night in their establishment
where they appeal to adults who have certain interests, then as long as
that’s legal that’s their prerogative. I’ve seen many restaurants
downtown have functions like Congressional Black Caucus weekends, during
inaugurations, having a host of activities outside of just being a
restaurant. What we’re saying
to these people is that as long as you abide by the law, but if you do
something that we don’t like based on our business plan. We aren’t putting any money in
your business, but we think a restaurant has to have just restaurant food 24/7
every day. But if you choose on a
particular night to have something beyond that, then you’ve somehow
violated something that ABRA does not see as a violation, and you’ve said
you’ve never had a violation.
For us to use comments from people we don’t know as our rationale
to vote against these people is a little bit much. We should support their move to a tavern
because they see it as more of an opportunity to improve your business. And as long as you abide by the law you
can have anything going on inside straight, gay, latex that you choose to. Commissioner Spalding asked to respond
to Commissioner Guyot’s remarks.
Commissioner Guyot said just stick to the facts, and Commissioner
Spalding responded that that was precisely what he wanted to do. I have looked at the statistics for
ANC1B, and most of the Commissioners have two or three licenses. Commissioners Thomas and Skinner have
six licenses in their SMD, and Commissioner Guyot has a dozen licenses to keep
track of. My single member district
currently has fifty-two liquor licenses.
I’d like to put that in the context of our hearing of applications
since I’m constantly construed as being opposed to businesses. In the past eighteen months there have
been twenty-four ABRA applications from my single member district decided by ANC1B,
and I have voted to support every one of them until tonight. Commissioner Guyot stated that this
Commission has a responsibility to deal fairly with every applicant regardless
of what their sexual predilections may be, regardless of what customer base
they appeal to, because if there’s a violation of the law ABRA will close
them down.
Let’s be very clear, we
have an opportunity to deal fairness rather than insanity please defeat the
motion.
Motion was moved and failed on a
vote of (4-4-0). Commissioner Guyot
moved support of the application, and it was seconded and failed on a vote of
(4-4-0).
ABRA application No. 50268,
Asmara Café located at 900
Florida Ave. was presented by Commissioner
Spalding. Commissioner Spalding
gave a history of the applicant before ANC1B, and explained that they are
asking to add seven nights of live entertainment to their restaurant CR
license. Mr. Pappas described the
music as ethnic music, jazz and blues.
Commissioner Spalding asked if the performances would be electric or
acoustic, and applicant stated that it would be both. Commissioner Spalding asked if the
occupancy stated as fifty-nine was correct, and applicant agreed. Commissioner Spalding noted that there
is a line of residences immediately behind the restaurant, and asked applicant
if he had soundproofing or was planning on adding soundproofing. Applicant responded that the area is
filled with nightclubs and he didn’t think the people would
complain. Commissioner Spalding
again asked applicant whether they had any plans to prevent noise from
disturbing the residents behind the restaurant, and applicant said
there’s a kitchen between the performance space and the back of the
building. Commissioner Spalding
said then you have not soundproofed and do not plan on doing so, and
Commissioner Skinner responded that it’s not necessary, and Commissioner
Guyot added that it’s necessary because Commissioner Spalding says
it’s necessary. Commissioner
Spalding responded that for consideration of the neighboring residences the
peace, order and quiet are concerns.
Mr. Pappas said why don’t you give us a trial, and if you have a
problem with the loud music we can correct it. Commissioner Spalding responded that yes
if there are noise complaints we can complain to ABRA and ABRA can complain to
you, but you have a row of residents immediately behind your building and
I’m asking you to take their well being and rights in mind when you
provide this music. Commissioner
Spalding informed applicant that he has requested of ABRA that the application
be examined, and the response of applicant to the closest school was listed as
Cleveland Elementary twelve hundred feet away. In truth the nearest school is Garnet
Patterson which is about two hundred feet away. Commissioner Spalding stated that he was
less concerned about a CR license in proximity to a school, and ANC1B has
already voted support for the license, however, applicant should make sure that
the statements they have made to ABRA are correct, and in this case
corrected. Commissioner Skinner
asked if applicant was concerned about noise, and applicant responded that
there are a lot of nightclubs in the neighborhood. Commissioner Skinner asked applicant how
they would respond if there were complaints from neighbors about noise, and
applicant responded that if there’s a problem they will correct it. Commissioner Guyot stated that he
didn’t know how people can be in business and not understand the threat
that you pose to your opposition.
They will destroy you and laugh at you because you are easy to
destroy. You’d better do
something about the noise beforehand because they’re coming at you. And you know why I know they’re
coming at you? I look around, and I
read statements from CSNA, and what does it say? It says there are recent allegations
that operations at this location have been allegedly used for illegal
activities, but that was years ago.
They say it as though it is today.
What else do they say? This
failure to address following two ANC meetings where no significant discussion
occurred prior to votes being cast is an alarming problem to the residents of
this neighborhood. That’s a
blanket lie. We discussed this in
April and in May extensively and then we voted on it, and then they challenge
it. They are going to do the same
to you. I’m saying do you
understand what we’re dealing with?
I will support your application, but I don’t want you to leave out
of here uninformed. Unless you on 9th Street
organize and take care of cleaning your area, dealing with the noise yourself,
you will be picked on because these folks are hungry for victims and you look
like a good one. Commissioner
Esters asked applicant if he had stated that the kitchen was soundproofed, and
applicant responded that his kitchen was wide. Commissioner Esters asked if he had said
that it was soundproofed, and applicant said that it was not. Commissioner Spalding moved support for
Asmara Café’s request to add live entertainment to their CR
restaurant license, and it was seconded and adopted unanimously (8-0-0).
Commissioner Guyot said to applicant
that he should remember that he is in war.
ABRA application for a new CR
license for Tena Café at 1119
V St. was introduced by Commissioner
Spalding. This location applied for
a license in 2002, and it was opposed by both ANC1B and local constituents. Since that time they have, at times,
been operating as a café without a liquor license. Commissioner Guyot stated that he knows
this story. Applicant stated that
he has been operating a small café and wanted to add the restaurant
license. Commissioner Guyot stated
that Glen Melcher was Chairman of
this Commission when this Commission voted against this applicant. The basis for that opposition, and
I’m quoting exactly, he said ‘I’m not opposed to this
applicant, but it’s like the camels nose under the tent.’ Do you remember that language? Because they didn’t want the
corner down from you to be organized into an establishment, and that was the
basis on which this Commission voted.
So let’s deal with that rubbish and get it cleared away. This is a small law abiding place that
seats fifteen people. Now what in
the world can be wrong with a place this size taking the risk of risking their
money? I want to make it clear,
once this Commission had voted using the camel under the nose tent, I went down
to the ABC Board and testified on their behalf and they got their license. Let’s be clear, if we can’t
allow a fifteen seat place to exist and compete economically, then we should be
facilitating them rather than deprecating them. Commissioner Skinner stated that he
wanted to be on the record as supporting any establishment with occupancy of
fifteen, and wanted to congratulate the applicant for bringing back the
vitality to U Street. Commissioner Butler asked if there was a
new residence being built next door to their building, and applicant
agreed. Commissioner Esters asked
if they were currently selling liquor, and applicant said that no they are not
currently selling liquor but they want to.
Commissioner Butler asked applicant if they knew how the neighboring
residents felt about having a liquor license at that particular location since
you are right next to a number of residential properties. Applicant responded that there are no
musical shows, and the liquor was just for the people who would be coming round
to eat. Scott Pomeroy asked about
the current hours of operation, and whether with the application for the liquor
license they were planning on expanding the hours? Mr. Pomeroy stated that he had supported
the original request with the limited hours, but that he would be very
concerned if the application included extended hours. This is off the corridor and is in a
dense residential neighborhood.
Applicant responded that he was not planning to make the big noise. Mr. Pomeroy said that he is not
concerned with the noise if the hours are not being extended. Commissioner Spalding stated that the
application included extending hours to the full parameters of the ABRA
allowances. Mr. Pomeroy responded
that that presented larger problems for the surrounding residential
neighbors. Mr. Pappas stated that
this couple is buying the business from Tutu, and Tutu made the mistake of
leasing the restaurant to some pretty rough people in the beginning there, and
that’s where all the trouble came from. The nurse living behind the restaurant
complained, and she had a right to, but I don’t think the nurse will be
involved now the way they’re running this establishment. Mr. Pomeroy responded that they were
talking about a serious change in the operations a block off the commercial
corridor and surrounded by residential properties. The traffic coming in and out will be
doing so at much later hours.
Commissioner Skinner stated fifteen people. Commissioner Skinner stated this is a
restaurant not a nightclub. Mr.
Pomeroy stated that he’s happy to see businesses opening up on U Street, but there
are inherit conflicts when you have late night alcohol served in the middle of
a residential area. Commissioner
Skinner asked about the zoning, and Commissioner Spalding responded that
it’s ARTS/CR zoning.
Commissioner Guyot asked applicant if he could restrict use of the
outside area of the restaurant to eleven o’clock. Commissioner Spalding stated that the
notification posting for this application happened last Friday before the
holiday weekend, and the hearing for this application is not until the end of
July. Commissioner Spalding said
that he immediately got phone calls and emails from forty neighboring residents
who are concerned about this license request, and suggested that the Commission
consider tabling this application to our July meeting to allow the community to
discuss the hours proposed in the request and to talk with the applicant. We have plenty of time to work on this
application and we can consider it at our July meeting. There is a significant community concern
over this application shown by the response over a holiday weekend. Commissioner Skinner responded that
sometimes we think casually and say we can wait another few months but this is
harder for the businesses that have to wait. I don’t think the issues raised by
the community are beyond be discussed and we can come to some type of
conclusion, but when we say the hearing isn’t until sometime don’t
worry about it. I still think we
can give our support, or if we didn’t want to support, or add
contingencies from what Scott or Mr. Guyot has brought up regarding issues of
noise. But to say that this request
for fifteen people in a restaurant and we can’t come up with a solution
tonight. Commissioner Guyot urged
the Commission to deal with this and deal with it quickly. Here’s an applicant who when asked
directly ‘will you deal with the noise containment’ did not
hesitate, he said yes. He said
I’ll close the outside at eleven o’clock and I’ll do anything
I can to manage the noise internally every hour we’re open. Madam Chairman what more can a
businessman give than this? The
basic argument against this was that they didn’t want this to get
organized because they were afraid of the corner being organized. Well, the corner has been organized into
something else. That argument no
longer exists. They made a
commitment to the noise containment, which should go into our letter of
approval, and I urge that we approve this applicant. Commissioner Skinner seconded. Commissioner Spalding asked if
Commissioner Guyot was making a motion, and Commissioner Guyot responded that
he was. Commissioner Spalding
stated that Commissioner Guyot was moving support for an ABRA application in
Commissioner Spalding’s single member district. Commissioner Guyot stated that he knows
this history. Commissioner Spalding
asked if Commissioner Guyot would allow him to offer the motion, and
Commissioner Guyot stated that this involves history that came before
Commissioner Spalding came.
Commissioner Spalding stated that this business was in his single member
district, and regardless of the history with ANC1B it should be his prerogative
to offer the motion on a license application in his single member
district. Commissioner Guyot
responded that it was because he had just made the motion and had it
seconded. Chairperson Thomas
addressed Commissioner Guyot, admitting that she was confused, when we have a
single member district Commissioner who feels strongly on an issue that’s
in their single member district, and that’s a concern to the constituents
that live in that single member district; I’d like to think that
we’d respect one another in dealing with these issues. You often confuse me, but I do know that
this is somebody’s single member district. Commissioner Guyot responded that the
Chairman had every right to raise the issue, but that he would respond to the
confusion openly, frankly and rawly.
I know the history of this case.
Chairperson Thomas said that she also knew the history of this case, as
did many who are in the room.
Commissioner Guyot responded that no, no everyone doesn’t, he
wasn’t on the Commission then.
I’m simply saying madam Chairman that the fundamental genesis of
the opposition was “we don’t want the camels nose under the
tent.” If I had not made the
motion of support, I know very clearly, and everyone in this room knows what
the motion would have been. It
would have been to oppose it. Now,
I’m being honest, I’m being direct. Let me just go on since you’ve
opened this door madam Chairman, when the Shaw Cardozo voted to repudiate us
and our reputation, that single member district Commissioner was present in
that meeting. So let us be clear, I
have the fondest respect for this Commission, but I think that its positions
should be supported, and if you find them unpopular and there’s been a
public vote taken, you should support the reputation of 1B, which has been
raised over and over tonight. I’m
tired of it and I think we should have respect enough for ourselves to deal
fairly with people regardless of how unpopular they may be. Chairperson Thomas stated that
Commissioner Guyot had still not addressed the question that she had asked him. Scott Pomeroy asked for clarification
from the owner over the agreement over closing the outdoor section, and turning
off the sound system when you’re right outside people’s back
windows is insufficient. Applicant
stated yes we can close.
Commissioner Guyot stated that that would be part of his resolution in
support of the application, that the back area be closed. Commissioner Spalding stated that he was
not going to make a motion that the Commission oppose this application. I have a number of constituents who have
written to me, and a large number who have called me about this
application. Almost all of these
neighbors have asked that ANC1B give them time to consider this change to their
neighborhood. They learned about this
application last Friday when notice was posted on the café. All that my constituents have asked me
to do was to get them an extra month to talk with the owners of the
café. Commissioner Guyot
interjected ‘so they could kill it.’ Commissioner Guyot continued
‘history says that they will kill it.’ I speak with history. Chairperson Thomas responded that she
had received many of the same emails and phone calls, and isn’t that
their right. Commissioner Guyot
responded ‘do they have a right to destroy them, no they do not.’ Chairperson Thomas asked if it was not
the right of the constituents to oppose, speak upon or whatever. Commissioner Guyot responded that
‘they have a history of opposition from the very first.’ The people in that area, they said we
don’t want the camel’s nose under the tent, and that’s what
they said. Chairperson Thomas said,
but look at all the new residents that you have in this neighborhood. Chairperson Thomas said, look at the
development in this neighborhood and you’ll see all kinds of new
residences and new residents.
Commissioner Guyot stated that a delay here means death. I ask that we vote to support this
applicant before the opposition gets to solidify, and harden, and kill
them. Motion of support was
approved in a vote of (3-1-2).
Commissioner Guyot stated you’re saved, but let me tell you
something before you leave that table, organize everybody around you or they
are going to come to kill you.
Grant application from CommUnity
Festival was dismissed since an application had not been received, and no one
was present from the requesting group.
Grant application from Home Roots
for $4,000 to pay for webpage design and maintenance, printing, copying,
advertising and consultants. Tony
Norman, Vice President of the Pleasant Plains Civic Association stated that
this is a group that they have been working with. They are a 501C3 and they are advocating
for affordable housing, and for those of lower income and senior citizens who
are presently in the area to remain in the area due to the rising prices. They are seeking a grant to establish an
educational component. They are in
the process of compiling a list of vacant properties in the 1B area, since the
government lists are so unreliable.
Joseph Paul the organization’s President said that they are an
organization committed to increasing the affordable housing in the District
with a special focus on the Columbia
Heights neighborhood. In our educational seminars we will
cover house financing as well as national housing funding programs. We are targeting senior citizens,
immigrants and the homeless, as well as single parents. Mr. Matthews as a board member or the
organization stated that they are just getting started. Mr. Matthews stated that housing is
needed for any strong neighborhood, and questioned how we can have
revitalization when long time residents are no longer able to afford to stay in
their neighborhoods. Chairperson
Thomas indicated that she is also a housing advocate, and asked for an
explanation of the request for $10,000 to set up a web page, printing, copying
and consultants. Is what you are
doing putting together a resource package for low income families to better
educate them about affordable housing?
Mr. Norman said that the $4,000 would go towards the listed expenses. Chairperson Thomas stated that most low
income people don’t have access to internet service, and Mr. Norman
stated that the major part of the educational campaign would be in
seminars. Chairperson Thomas
continued asking how they would get the information out to those who need it,
and Mr. Norman said that they would have a series of seminars that would go
directly to the people. Chairperson
Thomas alerted Mr. Norman that the city has funding available for exactly what
they are proposing, and the current request for proposals is open until June 22nd. The Neighborhood Based Activities
Comprehensive Housing Counseling Service Community Development block grant is
open for your application before June 22nd. A number of organizations are doing
exactly the same things that you’re proposing to do especially in Ward 1,
and I’d hate to see you duplicating what’s already here. Mr. Norman responded that this group is
different because they are focusing on present homeowners who are being forced
out. Chairperson Thomas responded
that she did not see any of that in the grant application. Commissioner Guyot expressed the desire
that we fund a group who would be prepared to work with all existing groups,
and not to be a duplicative effort.
Commissioner Guyot asked Mr. Norman if this group would be working with
the Columbia Heights Development Corporation and Manna. Mr. Norman said that this would be a new
organization to work with the existing groups. Scott Pomeroy cautioned the Commission that
they not duplicate city funded services and consequently lose the funds. Mr. Pomeroy added that there already
exists web services doing the same things that this organization has asked for
funds to do, and cautioned that they might be better off working with these
organizations rather than duplicating and diluting the efforts of all. While I commend the nature of this
organization and its goals, it is important that we don’t jeopardize the
funding sources available, and lose funding when the city’s auditor
declares the uses duplicative. Mr.
Norman stated that this is not a duplication of services; they’re also
proposing to give advice to homeless, and those who presently own property and
are fighting to keep it. If there
are already services for these people, then why do we continue to have these
people suffering? I see this as a
much more activist group focusing on private resources. Commissioner Skinner moved support of
the grant of $4,000. Commissioner
Guyot offered a friendly amendment that speaks to the purpose of the grant, and
the purpose of the grant would be to work to establish a confederation of all
existing services that deal with or impact on low and moderate income
housing. I don’t know anyone
who is funded for that purpose, and it’s important for us avoid paying $8,000
to contribute $4,000. The friendly
amendment was accepted by Commissioner Skinner, and the motion was
seconded. Commissioner Guyot stated
that it’s clear that that is how we will write this, and that’s how
we’ll write the justification for it. That we are funding an organization to
establish a confederation that includes representatives of all agencies,
whether government or private, that deal with low income housing. Motion was moved and approved
(5-1-1).
In additional motions and
resolutions Commissioner Spalding introduced a motion of support for the
formation of a local group that was forming to deal with responsible
hospitality issues. A number of
local groups and individuals have been holding meetings with a national group
called the Responsible Hospitality Institute, who have been working with cities
across the nation dealing with the development and responsibilities of the
hospitality industry. Scott Pomeroy
of the 14th and U Main Streets Initiative stated that they have the
ability to access technical assistance through the National Trust for Historic
Preservation, and the Responsible Hospitality Institute is one of those
assistance packages. This is a
process that began in the city four years ago and has the endorsement of the
restaurant association, in order to bring all of the affected groups to the
table to find consensus. This is a
process that has been shown in other cities to help in addressing the concerns
that arise during development of neighborhoods with a hospitality component. We are looking for all of the local
groups who will eventually participate to endorse at this point so we
don’t waste the opportunity.
Commissioner Skinner moved support, and it was seconded and adopted
unanimously (7-0-0).
Commissioner Spalding introduced
a resolution requesting expansion of the proposed DCWASA amendment to Title 21
dealing with fee schedules for the replacement of customer lead water service
lines. The fee schedule proposed by
WASA would cost replacement of customer lines at $100 outside of the property
and $500 inside the property. WASA
has estimated that there are 23,000 customer lines that need to be replaced,
and that it will take them seven years to do so. One of my constituents asked if there
was not some way to add incentives to this program in order to encourage
citizens to privately contract the replacement and decrease the number of jobs
that WASA had to do. The incentive
that is being proposed would be a tax credit from the city for having replaced
a lead line, and in turn allowing the city to recover the value of these credits
from WASA. Commissioner Spalding
read the text of the resolution, and it was seconded and adopted unanimously
(7-0-0).
Chairperson Thomas excused
herself from the meeting, and Vice Chairman Skinner continued the meeting. Commissioner Guyot stated that he had
the challenge to ANC1B’s support of 1919 9th Street, and I want us
as a Commission to oppose this trash.
Our Commission met with Mr. Smarta at our April meeting and our May
meeting. Mr. Smarta has attended
every meeting that I conducted on 9th
Street.
He has been conducting meeting with the people who filed this protest in
good faith, as this Commission asked him to do. I am asking that we vote to oppose the
protest of application 35534, and I would base our objection to the challenge
on the fact that we rigorously interviewed and discussed with Mr. Smarta
parking, his ownership of the building, his commitment to rigorously adhere to
laws, there’s been no violation of the law in that building since
he’s owned it. Were there
violations before he owned it, yes.
One of the reasons that I’m so concerned that we do this is
because our very viability is openly challenged in section two where it says
‘the applicant failed to meet with the community after being invited to
our neighbor meeting. This failure
to address concerns the following two ANC1B meetings where no significant
discussions occurred prior to votes being cast.’ Mr. Chairman, this Commission has been
involved in everything that has been developed on the east side of Ward 1. Motion was moved and seconded and
adopted (5-0-1).
Commissioner Guyot introduced a
resolution supporting the establishment of an NAACP chapter on the campus of Catholic University, and it was seconded and
adopted on a vote of (5-0-1).
Commissioner Guyot proposed that
ANC1B write a letter of congratulations to government and the NAACP in Nashoba County
for dealing with racial conflict better than we can in Washington DC. Secretary Spalding requested that
Commissioner Guyot supply the resolution in writing. Commissioner Guyot agreed, and the
motion was moved, seconded and adopted on a vote of (5-0-1).
Meeting adjourned at 11:20PM.