Brian Flahaven

During ANC 6B’s May 15 special call meeting on Reservation 13, the commission passed a resolution (pdf) that included a request that the Office of Attorney General provide  a written legal opinion on the litigation risks associated with the District immediately seeking Best and Final Offers from the two development teams that responded to the 2010 request for BAFOs on parcels F1 and G1.

In a May 23 letter (pdf), Attorney General Irvin Nathan notified that the commission that his office has declined the commission’s request, stating that “my office is not in a position to share with third parties, or the public at large, the nature of its internal legal advisory communications with District agencies.” The Attorney General did confirm that his office had been in “consultation” with the Deputy Mayor’s Office for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) on the Hill East Waterfront.

The next step is to ask DMPED to provide a copy of the written opinion they received from the Office of Attorney General. During the May 15 meeting, Deputy Mayor Hoskins said he would be happy to provide such an opinion. I’m looking forward to reviewing it.

We had a great turnout at last night’s ANC 6B Reservation 13 Special Call Meeting to discuss the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development’s plans for parcels F1 and G1 on the site. Unfortunately, we may be looking at another year+ of process before the city selects a developer. Extremely frustrating.

Here were my takeaways:

• As expected, Deputy Mayor Hoskins announced that instead of seeking best and final offers from the two developers who responded to the 2010 request to develop parcels F1 and G1, his office plans to issue a new request for proposals for the two parcels. The reason? DMPED has received a legal opinion from the Office of Attorney General stating that not re-issuing the request for proposals would subject the city to potential litigation. I’m personally skeptical that the litigation risks associated with choosing one of the two responding developers are higher than the litigation risk that comes with any proposed development. ANC 6B is requesting that the Office of Attorney General provide a written legal opinion on this issue. The commission’s preference would be for DMPED to seek best and final offers from the developers that bid in 2010, which would get the long-stalled project moving sooner.
• Some new information – I asked Deputy Mayor Hoskins directly if the city had ruled out a proposed Redskins training facility for parcels F1 and G1. He said that F1 and G1 are “off the table” for a proposed training facility but did not rule out using the remaining parcels for such a facility. Deputy Mayor Hoskins’ statement a proposed training facility was “never on the table” for Reservation 13 was extremely confusing, given that Mayor Gray has said a number of times that he would like to see a training facility at the site. Until I hear Mayor Gray say the training facility is off the table, it is still on the table in my view.
• DMPED appears ready to eliminate language from the 2010 request that gave the winning development team for parcels F1 and G1 the “right of first refusal” to develop the rest of the site. I strongly disagree with this decision and feel that any new request should include this language. If nothing else, it requires development teams who bid on parcels F1 and G1 to develop plans with the entire site in mind.
• After hearing from the Deputy Mayor, his team and the community, ANC 6B approved a resolution that, in lieu of an opinion by the Office of Attorney General, urges DMPED to immediately seek Best and Final Offers from the two developers who responded to the 2010 request. This is exactly what Mayor Gray directed DMPED to do during the March 22, 2012 Reservation 13 community meeting. The commission is also asking the Mayor and DMPED to develop a phased plan for preparing infrastructure for full development of the site and for addressing the future of community/social services at the site.
• Deputy Mayor Hoskins announced that he and his team would be meeting with Ward 7 ANC commissioners next month to get their feedback on the site.
• ANC 6B is also sending a letter to the Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs asking for clarification as to why DCRA continues to classify Reservation 13 as “unzoned” for purposes of building/construction permit applications. The site is zoned as the “Hill East District.”

A big thanks to all who attended. And I also want to thank Deputy Mayor Victor Hoskins and his team for attending the meeting and answering commission and resident questions. I’ll post ANC 6B”s resolution in the next day or so.

Please post your takeaways from the meeting below.

St. Coletta of Greater Washington, site of tonight’s ANC 6B Special Call Meeting on Reservation 13

We’ve just learned that Victor Hoskins, Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, will attend tonight’s ANC 6B Special Call Meeting on Reservation 13/Hill East Waterfront. The meeting begins at 7:00 pm at St. Coletta of Greater Washington (1901 Independence Avenue SE).

The Deputy Mayor and his staff are expected to outline next steps for development on parcels F1 and G1 and will hear commission and community feedback. ANC 6B will also likely debate and consider a resolution on development at the site.

Read my previous post for additional information on tonight’s meeting and links to key documents.

See you tonight!

ANC 6B will be holding a Reservation 13 Special Call Meeting on Tuesday, May 15, 7:00 pm – 8:30 pm at St. Coletta of Greater Washington (1901 Independence Avenue SE).

Staff from the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED)’s Office will be sharing their plans for selecting developers for parcels F1 and G1, the two parcels adjacent to the Stadium Armory Metro entrance. Instead of seeking best and final offers from the two developers who bid on F1 and G1 in 2010, DMPED now appears ready to re-open the request for expressions of interest for the two parcels. DMPED staff also want to get commission and community feedback on what uses (residential, retail, etc.) should be included in the request. View the agenda (pdf).

While I’m pleased that DMPED is seeking community feedback,  the decision to re-issue the request instead of seeking best and final offers from the two developers who already bid will result in further delay. And for what purpose? The 2010 request (pdf) clearly laid out that developers should propose medium-density residential and retail for these two parcels. That is consistent with the Reservation 13 master plan and in-line with the mixed-use vision supported by the neighborhood.

I’m also concerned that DMPED is going to drop language from the 2010 request that gives the developer selected for F1 and G1 the right of first refusal to develop the remaining parcels of the 67-acre site. As I detailed in a previous post, this language was a significant incentive for developers to bid on F1 and G1 back in 2010. Removing this sweetener, coupled with the spectre of a Redskins training facility looming in the background, may be enough to keep once interested developers on the sidelines.

My commission colleagues and I will have plenty of questions to ask DMPED on May 15. Please bring your questions and concerns as well. Note that DMPED will also be holding a special call meeting with ANC 7A, the Ward 7 commission that will include Reservation 13 in 2013, sometime in May.