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 ANCs 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
ANCs 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-6Ds 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.
OPs response to the ANCs 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 assemblage 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-tobe-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 administrations assertion that theres 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.
DDOTs response to the ANCs 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 OPs 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 OPs 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.
OPs 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).

OPs request that digital advertising signage not be allowed at DC United Stadium.
ANC-6D appreciates that OP supports our request for this restriction and encourages the Zoning
Commission to include this restriction in their order.

Department of Transportation
DDOT has prepared no plan to address the eighteen failing intersections -- currently rated E & F -- in
the area directly abutting DC United Stadium.
ANC-6D has regularly asked DDOT how we can continue on a development path of such significance in
this a geographically constrained area without addressing solutions to the very real problems that exist
in SW/SE at this moment in time let alone when in less than 24 months when we add a soccer stadium
and have the opening of The Wharf and one quarter of the 6,000 units of housing on Buzzard Point close
to operational. The traditional response is that they are well aware of this problem because 55 M Street
is located in our ANC. Awareness without action simply preserves the status quo.
DDOT insists that they need not prepare a plan at this time to provide access across South Capitol
Street to the DC United Stadium during the construction of the Frederick Douglass Bridge
A new Frederick Douglass Bridge has been under study for the better part of a decade. This is the
largest public infrastructure project undertaken by the District of Columbia. The EIS is complete.
ANC-6D finds it absolutely inconceivable that there are not now plans in place to provide even the most
cursory response to the question of how access to Buzzard Point will be provided during the time that
the bridge project, the construction of the Traffic Oval and the concurrent redesign of South Capitol
Street will be under development. An answer to this question will impact millions of dollars of
development on Buzzard Point and South Capitol Street and the quality of life for thousands of existing
residents in Southwest.
At what point is it to be expected that this information will be actually be prepared --- if it is not at this
time something that can already be disclosed? A Zoning Commission request ought to be sufficient
before a FOIA request is necessary.
DDOT still proposes no solution to the challenges of RPP
Under cross, DDOT had no answer to the ANC about when they would undertake the long-awaited plan
to revise RPP. Perhaps establishing sub-zones will provide a bit of comfort in an area where residential
parking is already under siege. Perhaps there are other solutions to put on the table. Yet no date is
presently under discussion.
DDOT supports the ANCs call for increased bus transit to Buzzard Point
DDOT reiterated our verbal testimony that it takes a long lead time as long as 12 months to provide
enhancements to existing service for the 74 bus line. ANC-6D has supported this for several years
considerably before DC United was on the table. But since the stadium site has been under discussion
for at least two years, why has DDOT only recently held preliminary discussions with WMATA about
service enhancements to the Metrobus 74 line? Considering the long lead time, this should have been
well under way.

DDOTs contends that the TOPP will evaluate how best to provide service to Buzzard Point in
conjunction the stadium events.
If we dont know now, then we wont know then. Get a can to kick down the road.
DDOTs response demonstrates the paucity of current solutions on the table to provide transportation
service in that isolated area. Their approach also presently insulates them from taking responsibility of
providing a full range of solutions in that regard prior to Zoning Commission action in this case.