Advisory
Neighborhood Commission 6B
Minutes of Regular ANC Meeting
November 8, 2005
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent: None
Chairperson
There was a quorum for
conducting business.
Adoption of Agenda
Changes to the agenda – The
Chair stated that under Planning and Zoning, HPA #05-232,
Community Speakout
None
Community and Commission Announcements
None
Presentations
DCRA – Dr. Patrick Canavan, Director of DCRA – His
vision for DCRA
Dr. Canavan thanked the
Commissioners for allowing him to join their meeting. He started off by say that he was brought to
DCRA because it had not been a great neighbor in the neighborhood and the
customer service area was quite lacking in terms if its ability to follow-up on
issues or to get back to constituents when needed. He wants to partner with the community in
addressing improvements in quality of life issues. He stated that they have already taken a
number of steps to start to improve the customer service actives, not the least
of which was to bring on customer service specialists who ever crossed
trained. He stated that often times in
the past, parts of DCRA did not talk to each other. While one might need to get a basic business
license for the rental unit, which you knew, you don’t know that you needed a
CFO that was appropriate for the application, particularly because no one had
told you. What they are working on now
is to make sure each department understands how they maybe impacting another
department and vice versus to make the whole story is told and the process is
as smooth a complete as possible.
He stated that his former job
was the Director of Neighborhood Services and the whole idea behind
Neighborhood Services was working together with DCRA to solve problems that
were present to them. He felt their
ability to solve problems was improved when DCRA was honest with them and they
had varying levels of success. He was
critical of DCRA from the outside and would say that they needed to be more
involved. Now that he is the DCRA
Director he is creating positions in the inspection division in this area to
focus on Ward 6. Shortly he will be
announcing the ward supervisors and all the inspectors who are housing
inspectors, commercial inspectors and construction inspectors, and they will
report to the
Ward 6 supervisor and he is
confident that it will dramatically improve how they view Ward 6 and how they
can better support Ward 6 to have a better quality of life in Ward 6.
Dr. Canavan also stated that
they are an economic development agent of the city in terms of regulations of
business licenses. In the future we will see them taking a more
active role in publicizing about basic business licenses and educating the
people on the responsibilities of business owners and also on effective ways on
improving itself.
He stated that DCRA has spent
a lot of time working with other agencies to improve its IT Systems. Their latest count is that they have 51
databases that don’t talk to each other.
He is planning later in the week to turn on the switch to connect 6 existing
databases that are necessary to do building permits. It is his hope that by next Monday, that they
will be able to retire the 3 old IBM electric typewriters they have currently
use to type permits. He went on to say
this is not the ultimate system, but it is an attempt to start the
modernization process and it will have in it some safeguards to prevent illegal
duplications. He stated that he is attempting to demonstrate to the community
that he is working to do something in the right direction and that is what is
doing, which means he must improve the IT System first and he is very pleased
with the Council’s support in getting the funds to start the initiative to make
the needed IT improvements.
This year DCRA started a
Chief Tenant Advocate Division to support tenants in these extremely difficult
rental market and we will be hearing more about it in coming days. They will look to protect affordable housing
for all who rent in DC. Their initial
focus will be on organizing tenant groups and educating tenants on their
rights.
Additionally, the Council has
provided DCRA with some money and 8 positions to direct the efforts of the
Office of Consumer Protection. At one
time the DC’s Office of Consumer Protection was the model that was used around
the country. But over time it was
dismantled, but not is back. Their
initial focus is on automobile repair shops and home improvement contractors,
which are the two professions they get the most complaints about. He went on to say that business licenses are the
way in which they can start to address consumer fraud and consumer protection
issues.
He provided the Commissioners
and community with a postcard on which to list their request and comments
regarding needed services and actions or lack of action. He stressed the importance of getting
feedback and his desire to make DCRA the best it can be. He also informed that group that there will
be an ANC Liaison that will be up and running very quickly.
Commissioner Campbell asked
if they had issues or questions, who should they get in contact with. Linda Argo, the Deputy Director responded
that they can contact her directly (202) 442-8937 or they can go on the
website: www.dcra.dc.gov and asked the
director is on the left hand side. He
also gave the general information phone number of (202) 442-4400.
Commissioner Jarboe asked
when will the
Dr. Canavan responded that he
did not know exactly when the
Commissioner Glick and
several other Commissioners presented Dr. Canavan with their completed
postcards outlining their complaints and suggestions seeking some action on his
part. Dr. Canavan assured the
Commissioners and the people in the audience that his office would investigate
each complaint and encouraged everyone to utilize the postcards and their online
website to communicate with his office their complaints and comments. He also informed everyone about the Inspector
Generals Office and suggested that they utilize his office regarding
issues. He provided the IG’s e-mail
contact information which is ig.dc.gov and he believes he is doing an excellent
job and suggested we contact him.
Commissioner Campbell
discussed condominiums and some problems related to them. Dr. Canavan stated that they have had some
problems with condominium developers and a couple of weeks ago his office won
ten (10) of eleven (11) counts against the builders of Embassy Apartments who
sued DCRA and him personally on a very very serious matter. It was brought to his attention that they had
not followed the law. He is one of the
first DCRA Directors to take that and investigate and to determine that they
were liable and order up a cease and desist their activities. When they (Embassy Apartments) appealed in
court DCRA fought hard and crafted a legal argument that was success in them
wining ten (10) of eleven (11) counts in their favor. Therefore, he wanted everyone to understand
that when it comes to condos he is willing to make sure they follow the law.
There was some discussion
regarding illegal construction in various areas and Dr. Canavan stated that
he’s got some excellent inspectors and they will investigate any and all
complaints. He also suggested that
people contact the office inspectors to reports problems. The number is 442-stop is for Stop Illegal Construction.
Mr. Vinnakota stated that
For the last two years they
have been working with the City Council and the Mayor’s office to try and
identify a second campus. After looking
at over 100 sites they have arrived at using part of the RFK northwest parking
lot, bounded on the north side by Benning Road and on the west side of Oklahoma
Avenue, on the south side by C Street, and the east side by the Metro, which is
actually 30 acres. He further stated
that they are not looking to use all of the land. Mayor Williams approached Congress and
created legislation that would transfer up to 15 acres to be used as a SEED
boarding school. The intention is to
serve another 600 students in grades 7 through 12. He went on to say that he was present because
he wanted to inform neighbors and community members about the work they have
been doing.
He stated that the process is
like a 9 inning baseball game and this is the 2nd inning. The active legislation passes the Mayor has
to go through a whole process. There has
to be a definition of exactly which up to 15 acres of the land will be used,
and that will be a community process with many members of the city to figure
what would work best, taking into account number of different issues and
concerns. There will be a number of
community meetings that will held at St. Benedict the
Commissioner Glick stated
that he appreciate what they were doing.
He then asked Mr. Vinnakota what they were paying for the land. He responded that they are not paying anything. Commissioner Glick stated that this was
another handout in the Hill East community from the city, like St. Coletta’s
and
Mr. Vinnakota responded by
saying that he understands and there are a number of issues involved in looking
at different pieces of land. He went on
to say that there is also a competing bill on Capitol Hill that is looking to
sell the land to the highest bidder and the piece of land they are talking
about is in that bill.
Commissioner Glick asked if
they receive money from DC Government for education and he responded that that
was correct. He went on to say that they
receive 2 streams of funding. Number 1
is for the academic program in which they receive a per pupil allotment on an
average they receive about $10,000.00 per student. In addition to the education budget there is
a line item that funds boarding and that is an additional $15,000.00 per
student.
Commissioner Sheldon thanked
Mr. Vinnakota for coming and for the excellent job they are doing at the school.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that he too appreciates their program, but what is extremely disturbs him is
the way in which they are going about the process. He went on to say that if is the Mayor’s
office or Congress that the Commission needs to yell, then that is what needs
to be done because he like everyone else is tired of people parceling out Hill
East land like they did with St. Coletta’s and the hospital, yet again is very
upsetting. RFK at some point in time
will no long be there and the Commission and community must plan for the use of
that land. He went on to say that he
understood his dilemma in finding adequate space for his expansion and hope he
would reconsider the process.
National Marathon – Greater
Mr. Brown stated that Greater
Washington Sports Alliance is the Regional Sports Commission for
Commissioner Jarboe asked if
when they do road closure will there be any parking restrictions. His response was no and that the DDOT was
assured that there would not be towing in the neighborhoods prior to the race.
Commissioner Glick asked Mr.
Brown is the route he has laid out would be the permanent route. He stated it would not. He went on to say that they were attempting
to highlight the various neighborhoods so that they could showcase the work
that has been done in the communities.
Commissioner Glick asked by the city needs another race when it has the
Marine Marathon and what are the benefits of this race. Mr. Brown responded that this Washington area
ranked 3rd in the United Stated as a runner’s market and part of
their role is the highlight the assets of the residents that live here in the
various neighborhoods. The Marine
Marathon is a race in which anyone can participate. This race is to be a special high level event
and it will generate much need funds to support the local youth investment
organizations and the anticipated economic impact on the region.
Commissioner Campbell
expressed his concerns regarding the potential disruption to his SMD with
parking and traffic associated with the event.
Mr. Brown said they will be asking participants to utilize the metro and
centralized local parking facilities that will be setup.
Commissioner Russell
questioned the real impact the runners will have on the neighborhoods, which
will only be compounded by the normal Saturday travel and activities in the
various neighborhoods. Mr. Brown stated
that there will be a flow pattern that will be established to illustration when
runners will be coming through the various neighborhoods. He stated that he will come back and review
the specific flow patterns with the Commission.
Commissioner Jarboe invited
Mr. Brown to come back at a later date to specifically talk about the traffic
problem because they will be blocking of two main thoroughfares on a
Saturday. This will help alleviate the
fears in the neighborhood when he has the specific traffic and flow patterns to
review with everyone. To which Mr. Brown
responded that that is exactly what the Professional Race Management company is
doing in getting the actual traffic lane closures and the
Someone from the community
asked if they had a qualified marathon planner setup the race. Mr. Brown response was yes. The person went on say that he was a marathon
running and the course they had outline was very difficult.
Commissioner Sheldon asked
Mr. Brown based upon his discussion regarding the marathon’s growth, what type
of numbers was he looking at for the future, was he looking for numbers like
the Marine Marathon which is 30,000 participants. Mr. Brown responded that he was not looking
for numbers like that in fact they are looking at over a three year growth that
the number would be more like 8,000 participants.
Planning and Zoning Committee
The Chair turned the meeting
over to Commissioner Russell, Planning and Zoning Committee, Vice Chair.
Commissioner Russell
presented the Committee Report:
BZA # 17397, 1008 South Carolina Ave. SE, Variance lot
Occupancy, non-conforming structure, addition two-family flat
Architect, H.L. Walker
present representing David Jackson, owner. Due to deterioration of the rear
wall of the structure it had to be demolished. Owner, secondary to demolishing
existing rear wall, wishes to reconstruct the rear wall to eliminate the rear
recess which will add 44sq. ft. to the building. This will increase the lot
occupancy from 60% to 71%. This will exceed, by 1% the allowed BZA allowance of
70%.
Applicant is also seeking a
variance for the 1% excess. However, the 1% over 70% is within the Zoning Administrators
discretion (the Administrator may allow up to 2% over lot occupancy under
section 407 of the zoning regulations), we don’t see why he should have had to
apply for a variance in the first place, just for the special exception going
over 60%. With the addition to the lot
the structures will fill in a rear access, the addition will be in line with
existing structures on either side and therefore will not adversely or impinge
on issues of light, air and privacy of adjourning structures.
Applicant has letters of
support from neighbor of
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that one other item not listed in the report is that this case does meet the
variance test because it is a strange shaped lot and if it was not for the
strange shape of the lot, it would stay within the 70% requirement, therefore
it does meet the variance test of having an extra ordinary circumstance.
The Chair asked if there was
any new information and there was none.
The Chair then stated that this matter comes before the Commission as a
recommendation by the Committee in the form of a motion requiring no
second. He then asked all in favor of
adopting the Committee’s recommendation to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous 10-0.
Committee Chair, Francis
Campbell then presented the next case.
BZA # 17400, 325 A St. SE Special exception rear
addition court requirement S.F.D.
Matt Ossolinski, Architect
representing Peter & Katherine Powers, owners. Owners seek a special
exception to construct a rear addition while maintaining the existing width of
an open rear court. Due to the height of the addition the court should be 8ft.
2in. Applicant is seeking a special
exception to the court yard requirement as this is not possible secondary to
the lot size to maintain the rear court at 6ft. There exist no issues of light
air or privacy of adjourning neighbors and the proposed addition is in keeping
with the size and mass of existing properties.
Support of this addition by a
neighbor is alleged in section (a) of the applicant’s proposal. Applicant is
encouraged to produce letter/s of support from neighbors. There exist no
concerns from audience members or members of the Committee, therefore the
Committee recommends the application to the full ANC for approval.
Commissioner Campbell asked
if there was anyone present representing the case. Mr. Ossolinski stood and addressed the
Commission.
Mr. Ossolinski stated that he
had letters of qualified support from both neighbors for the project. In response to their qualified support he
has changed the design slightly to satisfy their concerns. Therefore, he is coming before the Commission
to support the amendment to his original design.
Commissioner Campbell then
read one of the letters which read as follows:
“To Whom It May Concern:
We have looked over the plans
for the rear addition to
Both Commissioners Campbell
and Olson asked Mr. Ossolinski if the neighbor wants windows facing her
property and he responded yes.
Commissioner Jarboe asked if
the windows would be on a party wall.
Mr. Ossolinski stated that they would and went on to say that he would
use a drawing to illustrate later.
Commissioner Campbell then
read the letter from David Ottaway who is at
“To Whom It May Concern:
We have looked over the plans
for the rear addition to
Commissioner Campbell stated
that he did not remember any mention of the wall being glass.
Mr. Ossolinski explained that
they had originally put windows in facing east and the party wall facing west
with no windows. The neighbor with the
windows facing east into the court decided that they did not like the
windows. The neighbor on the west said
that they did not like looking at a concrete wall. So what they did was reverse their scheme to
put windows not on the property wall (party wall), but recessing in 3 feet,
which is the new plan he would like to submit.
Commissioner Jarboe asked if
he was recessing the windows in 3 feet on what was the party wall before, was
he creating an illegal court on that side.
Mr. Ossolinski said yes.
Commissioner Jarboe then stated that he would then need a different
special exception now. Mr. Ossolinski
responded that he would need to amend his special exception to allow a court on
both side. He went on to say they the
changes are being made to satisfy the neighbors.
Mr. Ossolinski spent some
time reviewing the original design and the revised design and the reasons for
the modifications.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that he would move that the Commission amend the Committee Report to support
the amended submission and it was seconded by Commissioner Russell.
Mr. Ossolinski then asked
that should BZA not allow them to have the new non-conforming court that the
Commission give a secondary support for the original proposal. He went on to say that he was trying to
anticipate what BZA might say about the revised proposal in rejecting it and
with them supporting the original proposal.
Commissioner Campbell stated
that he did not have a problem with this approach.
Commissioner Cernich then
asked if that would mean that the Commission would be supporting the design
that the neighbors did not like.
Commissioner Sheldon stated
that he would not support anything that the neighbors are not in favor of. He went on to explain how some constituents
in his SMD had a conflict relating to a neighbors construction and it ending up
costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get it resolved, and
he wants to avoid that type of situation if possible.
Mr. Ossolinski asked if the
submittals he previously submitted to the Planning and Zoning Committee in
spite of the objections from the neighbors is not the issue about the effect of
the addition on light, air, and privatize of the neighbors.
Commissioner Sheldon stated
that as long as the neighbors have objections he will not be supporting the
original design. He further stated that
since Mr. Ossolinski had revised his design to satisfy the neighbors’ wishes,
he is willing to support the amendment regarding the revised plan, but not the
original plan.
Commissioner Campbell stated
that he could not see a reason why BZA would not approve the revised plan,
therefore he did not see the need for him wanting the Commission to do a backup
support for the original design.
Commissioner Jarboe and Mr.
Ossolinski discussed the issue of matter-by-right and Commissioner Jarboe
stated that the design change will help the neighbor on one side regarding
their light, air and privatize, but under the special exception it isn’t their
light, air, and privatize that is at issue.
It is the light, air, privatize of the neighbors on the other side. Commissioner Jarboe then stated that he would
be inclined to support the original design even though the neighbors would not
be happy with it, because he could not see a logical rational to deny his
original request.
Commissioner Campbell said
the matter is only complicated in that when the original design was presented
at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting Mr. Ossolinski stated that he had
the neighbors’ approval. But when he
bring them in their letters specifically states what they do and do not agree
with, which now complicates the matter somewhat regarding the recommendation on
the original design. He went on to say
that the Commission can not vote to support your revised plan as Commissioner
Jarboe’s motion is to do, and turn around and back support your original plan
and would go against what the Commission is actually supporting which the
revised plan. So Mr. Ossolinski can not
have it both ways.
Commissioner Olson pointed
out that the Committee recommended the approval, so the Commission will need to
vote and that first, and then it can vote on amendment. She went on to say that the Commission has
spent the last two (2) months in a battle to try and to get the neighbors to
work with the owners of 644 Independence and the majority of the Commissioners
agreed with the neighbors for the most part.
Once again in this case believes the Commission should side with the
neighbors and not approve the original plan and approve the second plan.
Commissioner Cernich asked
Commissioner Olson why she wants to side with the neighbor, not to challenge
her, but just understand her logic.
Commissioner Olson stated
that she was not siding with the neighbors.
But she felt that the issues had been discussed with the neighbors and
the design had been changed to satisfy the neighbors concerns, which she was
quite pleased with, and she would rather see neighbors getting along and she
would prefer to see something that will satisfy all parties and if the parties
are satisfied with the new design, she can see any reason why the Commission
should not approve the revised design and why BZA would not approve it based
upon the Commission’s “great weight”.
Commissioner Cernich stated
that the had an academic question based upon his observations, since he has
been on the Commission, it appears that the Commission lets the neighbors veto
projects and he wanted to know if that was the way in which the Commission
would be making decisions or are they exercising their independent judgment on
the issues. He reminded the commissions
that they represent both the neighbors and the applicants in the matters and
wanted to make sure he understood the logic and rational on how decisions are
arrived at, just to inform his decision making efforts.
Commissioner Glick stated
that he always vote in favor of something with the neighbors on both sides are
not opposed to is how he makes his judgments.
Commissioner Cernich then stated that the neighbors can veto a
project. Commissioner Glick said not
that they can veto it, but they need to show that they have tried to work with
the neighbors to resolve problems in a good-faith effort, which he can see
being done in this case.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that he did not want to take a vote on the original design now because there
are not neighbors her to voice their opinions on the matter. He would vote to support the revised plan and
if for some reason BZA votes against it, he can come back and the Commission
will take it up because as it stands today the Commission is neutral on the
first design.
The Chair asked all in favor
of amending the Committee Report to recommend the support of the revised plan
that were present here this evening to raise their hands. The vote was 9-0-1.
The Chair then asked all in
favor of supporting the revised application to raise their hands. The vote was 9-0-1.
S.O. (Surveyor Office) #
Michael Berman & Tom
Sherman owners of properties consisting of storage lockers facilities in the
rear alley, Sq. 1076, lots 69, 79-86 & 832. Owners wish to secure dead end
alley, which has a cinder block wall at one end and secured by a gate at the
other end.
There exist some concerns as
to how and if this closure will impact in any way the owner of lot 87.
Tacit approval is recommended
for this project to the full ANC pending any impact statement from the owner/s
of lot 87.
Commissioner Campbell asked
if anyone was present representing the applicants. Mr. Berman stood and approached the
commissioner’s table.
Mr. Berman stated that the
one house that might be affected by this is the abandoned one. Commissioner Olson asked if he had confirmed
that it is a vacant house and he said yes.
Commissioner Jarboe asked if
he was correct when he say there is not a garage at that location and Mr.
Berman agreed with him. Commission
Jarboe stated that he wanted to make sure someone did buy the house and trying
to turn into a garage, which would be a problem. No garage no problem.
Commissioner Russell stated
that the alley in question is basically a grass area therefore she would
support the closure.
After Commissioner Campbell
and the other Commissioners reviewed the drawings, they agreed that there were
no issues associated with the closing of the alley that would negative affect
the neighbors, therefore the word tacit in the report should be removed and
will say approval.
The Chair asked all in favor
of supporting the Committee’s recommendation to raise their hands. The vote was 8-0-2.
P.S. #15084, 422 3rd Street, SE – St.
Peter’s Parochial School – Erection of sign in front of school
Don Denton, President of the
School Board addressed the Commission regarding the application. He stated that there are 436 students
attending the school, which is located on Capitol Hill. He described the location of the school and
stated they would like to put up a sign that would be similar to ones already
in place for other schools. The sign
would be 4 ½ feet by 4 ½ feet and would be located about 16 feet from the edge
of the sidewalk up on a hill facing southwest.
He also stated that HPRB had already looked at the sign and had approved
it.
Commissioner Olson stated
that St. Peter’s was in her SMD and she had no objections to the sign
placement. Commissioner Olson then made
the motion that the ANC support the placement of the sign. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Wright.
The Chair then asked all in
favor of the public space permit to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (10-0).
HPA #06-029, 1225 – 1227 Pennsylvania Avenue, Replace
existing ground floor storefront with new wood storefront and add second floor
atop existing building
Mr. Roderick Williams on of
the prospective owner of the
Mr. Ward stated they are
looking to add a second story to an existing one-story structure. Mr. Ward said that his design was based upon
the desire to stay within the keeping of
Mr. Ward spent time reviewing
the specifics of his design with the Commissioners. He was asked by Commissioner Russell what
would the exterior be made of. He
responded that the first floor would be brick and the second floor with be, on
the corners, and aluminum siding between glass windows.
Commissioner Campbell asked
how far back would the setback be and Mr. Ward said it would be 4 feet.
Commissioner Cernich asked if
they had passed their plans by HPBS. Mr.
Ward responded yes and that they had been instructed to begin the process with
the ANC and then come back to them. They
did not comment on this design at all.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that is concern was the potential loss of retail space along
Commissioner Cernich asked
Mr. Williams if he had a tenant lined up.
Mr. Williams stated that he is a lawyer and he was looking at
potentially occupying part of the structure for his office.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that he was willing to support the application, however he was concerned about
the aluminum siding and wanted to know if there was any other material that
could be used in its place. As far as
the setback was concerned he likes the design and suggested that the look at
the building across from Eastern Market where they put the second floor on and
set it back as well as a good example he can use.
Commissioner Cernich told Mr.
Ward that the structure was not in his SMD, but he would support it and
suggested that he look at the exterior material to keep it in line with the
area.
Commissioner Campbell asked
if they had considered asking HPRB for permission to remove the storefront from
the structure. Mr. Ward and the other
Commissioners felt that HPRB definitely would not consider favorable such a
change.
Commissioner Sheldon made the
motion that the ANC support the application with the caveat that the developer
look carefully at the material they will be using on the second floor. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Cernich.
The Chair asked all in favor
of supporting Commissioner Sheldon’s motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (10-0).
ABC Committee
Congress Market –
Eastern Thrifty Market –
Roland’s of Capital Hill –
333 Penn Ave SE, J&K, Lic # 60916, Class Retail B
Pennsylvania Avenue Market –
1501 Penn Ave SE, Lic # 71197, Class Retail B
Applicants are following the
Voluntary Agreement and there are no objections from the community. The ABC Committee recommends that the full
ANC do not oppose their license renewals.
On a separate note,
Pennsylvania Avenue Market requests that we consider holding ABC meetings at a
different time of the day. Early evenings are the busiest times of the day for
most store owners because of the Lotto.
I support the ANC giving this additional consideration.
Motts Market –
No representatives were at
the ABC Committee meeting. The ABC
committee makes no recommendation to the full ANC, at this time.
Commissioner Jarboe made the
motion that the first five (5) be considered in block. The Chair stated that
the recommendation from the Committee comes as a motion requiring no second and
the Commission will be voting on the first five (5) applications.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
because of past history with Pennsylvania Avenue Market, if this was the new
owners or not. Commissioner Wright responded
that it was not new owners, that it was in fact the same owners.
Commissioner Hill stated that
his concern was that they did not have a Voluntary Agreement. Commissioner Wright looked through the file
and responded that they did have one in place.
The Chair then asked all in
favor of supporting the ABC Committee recommend to not oppose the license
renewals to raise their hands. The vote
was unanimous (10-0).
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that the other two (2) establishments were in his SMD and he has not heard any
complaints or concerns about them. He
asked if any of the owners of Lincoln
Park Mini-market and Motts Market were present.
No one was present from either establishment. Commissioner Jarboe then recommended that
since there were no outstanding complaints that the Commission take no action.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that the city has proposed to build a
Resolution
November 8, 2005
Whereas: the City
Administration has proposed in conjunction with Howard University to build a
$400 million, 250-bed hospital with Level 1 trauma capabilities, a medical
office building and a research complex to be know as the National Capitol
Medical Center (NCMC);
Whereas: the original
justification given for the NCMC is to serve currently medically underserved
residents, especially those east of the
Whereas: the NCMC would be
located west of the
Whereas: the serious unmet
medical needs of Washington residents are primarily for chronic care for
conditions such as asthma, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, cancer,
HIV-AIDS, conditions which are better treated by family doctors and in
outpatient specialty clinics and offices than in a hospital, emergency room or
trauma center;
Whereas: construction and
operation of the NCMC is likely to result in the closure or dramatic downsizing
of the current Howard University hospital and Greater SE Hospital and result in
a negative impact on the viability of Prince Georges Community Hospital;
Whereas: the loss of these
medical facilities due to the construction the NCMC will decrease the access to
health care facilities in the currently underserved areas;
Whereas: a more appropriate
health care facility on Reservation 13 could both strengthen the existing
health care facilities and provide a spur to expanded health care in
underserved areas;
Whereas: the cost of the NCMC
would preclude the expansion of ambulatory care in underserved areas;
Whereas: the cost of the NCMC
will put heavy burdens on the District’s ability to borrow funds for other
needs, such as school modernization;
Whereas: the proposed
agreement between Howard University and the District may put the District at
risk for ongoing and continued annual outlays of expenditures for the operation
of the NCMC;
Whereas: the proposed
location of the NCMC has spread beyond the limits of lots B and C of
Reservation 13 to included the use of the RFK parking lots for hospital parking
and to included the consolidation of certain city medical facilities currently
on Reservation 13 to a site on lot L located along the proposed extension of Massachusetts
Avenue;
Whereas: the NCMC proposal is
incompatible with the Master Development Plan for Reservation 13 in that it
eliminates underground parking and reconfigures roads including those in what
were to be residential areas;
Whereas: the City Administration
has proposed to legislatively circumvent the established Certificate of Need
process specifically for this project;
Whereas: legislation proposed
by the City Administration concerning the Certificate of Need process does not
seek to reform or eliminate the process but solely to exempt the NCMC project.
Be it therefore resolved that ANC 6B:
b)
admonishes the Administration for proposing such actions to undercut the
process; and.
c)
strongly opposes against any other attempts to exempt this project from
existing rules and regulations.
Commissioner Jarboe moved that the Resolution be accepted as a motion and it was seconded by Commissioner Wright.
Commissioner Sheldon stated that he thought the Resolution
was well crated and that he had heard from a number of constituents regarding
this (
Commissioner Campbell stated that he has gone on record as
personally supporting the
Commissioner Olson stated that she does not necessarily oppose what was originally in the Master Plan for Reservation 13, which she believes it was for a 110 - 140 bed facility. She went on to say that she thought everything Commissioner Jarboe had in the Resolution was right on the make in term of them circumventing the process, they are not listing to the neighborhood and she could see a smaller facility there. In the end, she could see Reservation 13 becoming a medical center with St. Coletta’s on the corner.
Commissioner Campbell then stated that because of the issues Commissioner Olson stated and concerns about Reservation 13 becoming a medical center and because it views this as a land grab, he wants to amend his vote to no.
The Chair asked all in favor of supporting Commissioner Jarboe’s Resolution to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (10-0).
The Chair thanked
Commissioner Jarboe for all the work he put into developing the Resolution.
Committee reports and announcements
Fagon Guide Ad.
The Chair made the motion
that the Commission authorize up to $300.00 for the ad in the Annual Fagon
Community Guide. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Wright. The Chair asked
all in favor to raise their hands. The
vote was 9-1.
Approval of Minutes
The Chair stated that at the
Commission meeting a number of prior minutes were provided to the Commissioners
for their review and correction in order to get up to date on minute approvals.
Commissioner Olson stated
that the specific minutes were for 2004; January, February, March, May, June,
October and December. 2005; April, May, June, July and September.
The Chair thanked
Commissioner Olson and Mr. Randolph for their work in pulling everything
together.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that he would like to amend the motion because there were some minor
corrections in the ones that have already been approved. He recommended that Mr. Randolph be
authorized to make the necessary corrections to the minutes as he has outlined
in his review document for the specific months in question. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Campbell.
The Chair asked all in favor
of approving the minutes with the corrections as noted by Commissioner Jarboe
to raise their hands. The vote was
unanimous (10-0).
Adjournment
There was no further business
and Commissioner Hill made the motion that the meeting be adjourned until its
next meeting date of December 13, 2005.
The motion was seconded, and the vote was 10 to 0.
Meeting Adjourned.
Prepared by
Attested: