ANC 6D
Southwest, Navy Yard & Buzzard Point
MEMORANDUM
TO: Anthony Hood Chairman, DC Zoning Commission FROM: Andy Litsky Chairman, ANC-6D DATE: January 30, 2017 SUBJECT: ANC -6D Supplemental Responses to District Agencies ZC Case No. 16-02
–
DC United Stadium
BACKGROUND
At its December 14, 2016 Public Hearing, the Zoning Commission requested that the Office of Planning, Department of Transportation and Department of Energy and the Environment respond to the concerns expressed by ANC-6D during testimony in this case. This document is the ANC
’s
reply to those Agency responses.
Office of Planning OP replied to the ANC concern about how the proposed DC United Stadium must positively impact the adjacent community.
OP cites the obvious benefits of how this public-private partnership will accelerate economic development in Buzzard Point and Capitol Riverfront neighborhoods. We do not doubt whatsoever that the stadium will do precisely that. Yes, the interests of those holding large blocks of property south of DC United will be well served by this PUD
–
as well the property owners in Capitol Riverfront. However, they missed the greater point of our ANC testimony. The concern of the ANC is that the plan before us does not take into consideration the well-being of the already populated neighborhoods directly adjacent to DC United. The PUD virtually ignores
–
as does the response by OP and DDOT -- concerns of the existing neighborhood and thousands of residents who reside to the north and west who will be considerably impacted by this development. While Council
legislation authorizing the stadium development speaks
of “…improving conditions for nearby residents,”
ANC-6D has yet to see how this will positively impact these nearby populated areas. And although OP readily restates portions of the Comprehensive Plan to show consistency with their development-centric view, the ANC believes that glaring deficiencies continue to exist in the manner in which this Administration chooses to advance this proposal. One policy in the Comp Plan both OP and DDOT seem disinclined to address:
Policy AW-2.2.6: South Capitol Neighborhood Buffers
Ensure that the established communities adjacent to the South Capitol Street corridor, including the James Creek and Greenleaf Gardens housing projects and adjacent residential areas, are buffered from adverse impacts associated with increased density and traffic relating to stadium area development. Conserve these communities as important parts of the city fabric, and as affordable housing resources for the Southwest community.
1912.12
OP acknowledges that the Buzzard Point Vision Framework has been in draft since February
2016
.
There is still no date for release of this plan, although much of this PUD is predicated upon its findings and everything else on Buzzard Point is critically dependent upon it. As one of the foundation documents upon which the Applicant and each of the city agencies have based their assumptions and planning, this is a continuing challenge. ANC-6D, SWNA and others have yet to have our questions clarified after nearly a year. With a vision statement of such significance, one would have assumed that the Department would have again engaged their consultant to produce a document that would clarify the concerns that have been expressed over the course of the past year. However, it is to their benefit to leave this in draft. For if it is in draft it is subject to amendment at will. Items and statements previously presented in public, one presumes as factual, can and do change. It is a document written and amendable as needs warrant. Unfortunately, it is also the document whose transportation section has formed the very basis of the ANC
’
s objections in this case. If the goal of the department was to hold off making something official until after the DC United Stadium case was decided, it appears as though that has practically already been achieved.
OP completely sidesteps ANC-6D
’s
concern about potential use of eminent domain to provide transportation access to Buzzard Point.
In two separate public meetings (one at monthly ANC-6D meeting and another at a joint community meeting called by the ANC and SWNA), OP presented clearly that the Buzzard Point Vision Framework called Half Street,
“
the Transportation Spine into Buzzard Point.
”
It is based upon that very specific nomenclature --
and accompanied by visuals
-- that the clear understanding emerged that existing Half Street north of Q is completely inadequate to serve in any way, shape or form to support that use. The
only
way to accomplish this ‘vision’ is to remove existing housing north of DC United. OP’s response to the ANC’s concern about preservation of housing, instead of answering the question,
chose to reiterate how the department cobbled together the stadium site
. Yes, they stated that “the
District did not anticipate additional property assem
blage for the soccer stadium project.” But that is
not our concern. What they artfully deflected was an answer to our claim that by adopting the yet-to-be-finalized Buzzard Point Vision Statement that a significant widening of Half Street would be necessary
to complete what they have specifically labeled during public presentations the Transportation Spine of Buzzard Point
–
including the residential streets
north
of Q Street.
The administration’s assertion that “there’s nothing to see here, move along”
is disputed by the Buzzard Point Soccer Stadium EMS, which on page 6 of Part 2 states:
“
It is expected that any future housing development occurring in the residential zoning districts north of Q Street would be intended to upgrade the quality of the housing that is currently located there but would remain of a similar character and context, and would not be directly or
indirectly induced by the development of the soccer stadium.”
While OP
–
and DDOT -- may declare that this is not their
“
intent,
”
the Administration, which holds ultimate power, has steadfastly refused to state on the record and upon questioning that eminent domain is part of a larger plan to provide transportation access to Buzzard Point.
And DDOT presents their unique take with an alternative interpretation.
DDOT’s
response
to the ANC’s concern places quotation marks around the words transportation spine
perhaps to provide the appearance that the use of that phrase was of our own creation. We assure you,
it was not. Further, they state, differing considerably from OP’s presentations to the contrary, “No
changes to Half Street between M Street and P Street, including direction of travel, are planned as part of the stadium project or build
out of Buzzard Point.”
Fair enough. ANC-6D continues to ask the
question, “How does one
arrive
at Half Street and P if not through the existing neighborhood
–
perhaps
by drone or teleportation?” That answer –
the answer we have requested for the better part of a year -- is still forthcoming. DDOT is silent on the matter. Perhaps a portion of that answer may be
found in a contradictory statement on OP’s website in the
Buzzard Point Statement itself which, at once, claims that traffic will be rerouted to avoid the residential neighborhood yet states that Buzzard Point traffic will be routed through existing Southwest residential neighborhood streets. While ignoring First Street, SW altogether, it states:
“
The Buzzard Point Urban Design Plan would improve the physical connections and the streetscape conditions in the area. The plan identifies a hierarchy of roadways to help avoid traffic in existing neighborhoods. The primary routes would continue to be South Capitol and M Streets, while P, Half, V and 2nd Streets would create a loop for vehicular circulation throughout Buzzard Point, which essentially functions as a cul-de-
sac.”
OP
’s response
claims that Half Street has never been called out as the Transportation Spine of Buzzard Point is something that ANC-6D vigorously disputes.
Within that specific denial OP refers to the Buzzard Point Streetscape Guidelines
–
a topic that does not even currently appear on their website under Buzzard Point Urban Design Work Summary. (
Please note that what is visible on the OP website is appears only in summary
–
not in depth
–
therefore restricting both the public and policy makers from a complete understanding what plans are being advanced by the department and their consultants through a plan that is a moving target since it appears to have changed over the course of time and yet upon which major development decisions are being based).