Tenleytown RFP

MFP Manipulations

2009-03-13T08:27:00.013-04:00

Here is a timeline based on documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and other sources. It shows that, throughout 2008, DCPS was planning to move Janney up near the front of the modernization queue based on "right-sizing" initiatives, but that in the final days before the release of the September draft Master Facilities Plan (MFP), political intervention pushed Janney's addition to the very end of the modernization line, despite a protest from DCPS's facilities expert.

In July, after Mayor Fenty announced his decision to pursue a public-private partnership for the site, Allison Feeney wrote an email to CM Mary Cheh, offering advice regarding how to pressure the community into accepting a deal it clearly did not want. Cheh forwarded Feeney's note to Deputy Mayor Albert, adding her own endorsement of the strategy. Subsequent events seem to indicate that DMPED followed this advice -- including manipulating DCPS's modernization queue to suggest that the only way for Janney to ensure that its facilities would be addressed in a timely manner would be to consent to ceding part of its campus to private development.

In the March 2009 revised draft MFP, the Fenty Administration seems to have adopted that position. Now the question is before the Council. Will it reject the notion that which schools get what facilities when may be a function of the market value of their campuses? A Council hearing on the MFP, currently scheduled for March 26th (during DCPS's Spring Break!), may prove decisive.

The documents on which this timeline is based can be found at http://documents.scribd.com/docs/jr77ouz4qn4qvpr6ywv.pdf

September 2006 – Superintendent Clifford Janey submits his Master Facilities Plan draft to the DC Board of Education. In this plan, where the order of the modernization queue is determined primarily on the basis of the condition of a school’s existing facilities, Tenleytown’s Bernard T. Janney Elementary is near the end of the line (#104), despite the fact that it is one of the most overcrowded schools in the District and there is a lengthy wait list for out-of-boundary students seeking admission.

January 23, 2008 – As part of its “right-sizing” effort, DCPS anticipates accelerating Janney’s modernization. [Anthony DeGuzman email to Eric Lerum]

March 6 – Bev Sklover announces at a Community Meeting that she has spoken with the consultant working on the MFP who told her that, as a result of the school closures, Janney’s modernization will be moved up to 2010.

March 31 – Consultant’s draft Master Facilities Plan places Janney near the head of the modernization queue. In this document, Janney is #8 in line for modernization (the line does not include the 11 modernization projects already in progress). Janney’s renovation and addition is scheduled to begin in FY2010 and be completed by FY2012. The document makes no reference to PPP discussions and, judging from the timeline and budget figures, it does not assume that there will be a PPP at this site.

July 10 -- Despite overwhelming community opposition, Mayor Fenty announces that he's going forward with a PPP for the Tenley Library/Janney School site and has chosen LCOR as the private partner.

July 12 – Janney parent/SIT member Allison Feeney writes to Councilmember Mary Cheh suggesting that the only way to gain community support for the PPP is to ensure that there is no other way for Janney to get moved up in the modernization queue. If Janney is #8 without a PPP, Feeney points out, then no one will support a PPP. CM Cheh forwards Feeney's email to DM Albert, expressing her hope that Albert “will co-ordinate with those responsible and pursue” Feeney’s suggestions.

September 2-4 – As the final touches are being put on the draft MFP in anticipation of its public release, Anthony DeGuzman and Eric Lerum agree that Janney’s addition should take place in 2010 with renovations to follow in 2012 or 2013 depending on budget pressures. Lerum informs Chris Dunlavey (the consultant preparing the draft MFP) of this decision, emphasizing the order (addition before renovations) as well as the timeline.

September 8 – After a high-level meeting, Dunlavey circulates a new draft of the MFP, indicating that the “Changes include…shifting Janney addition out to 2014.”

September 9 -- DeGuzman questions this change: “why has the addition been moved to 2014? Schools with lesser space needs have leapfrogged them. This contradicts the guiding principles.” Dunlavey responds that it was made “per DME” (Deputy Mayor for Education Victor Reinoso).

September 10 – The draft MFP is released with Janney’s addition at the very end of the line (2014) and scheduled to take place after Janney’s renovations.

October 10 and 24 -- ANC 3E Commissioner Anne Sullivan and the Janney SIT and PTA submit testimony to the DC Council contesting Janney's position in the MFP queue, and citing some of the documents mentioned above. For the text of that testimony, go to http://ttownrfp.blogspot.com/2009/02/public-oversight-hearing-committee-of.html

November 25 -- Andrew Smiles reports to the Janney SIT that Anthony DeGuzman has told the Facilities Committee that Janney was likely to be moved up in the queue regardless of whether the PPP went forward. He adds that "The Freedom of Information Act documents obtained by the ANC meant downtown got called on Janney students’ needs not being prioritized in the MFP placement according to guiding principles of DCPS assessments."
http://www.janneyschool.org/PTASITPPP/SIT_Minutes/SIT%20Fall2006-2009/2008_Nov_SIT_minutes.pdf

January 30, 2009 -- Chancellor Rhee and DMPED officials meet with the Janney SIT. Rhee suggests that the only way to move the school's modernation up from 2014 is with the PPP. http://ttownrfp.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-which-chancellor-rhee-joins-dm.html

March 3-- OPEFM submits a revised MFP schedule to the Council. In this schedule, Janney's addition is restored to its original slot in 2010, only now a footnote states "Janney schedule is predicated upon a successful partnership between a private development company and the District of Columbia with respect to the redevelopment of the former Tenley/Friendship library site." Interestingly, another section of the MFP contains the same scheduling information without the footnote.

PPP 101

2009-02-18T12:42:00.006-05:00

Here's a short introduction to the proposed public-private development project in Tenleytown. It is designed to describe the deal and to explain why so many community groups are opposed to it. The description of the project is based on the most recent site plan available (dated January 21, 2009). This page will be updated as new/different/additional information is made public.

If there is a public-private project (PPP) at this site, what would the private developer (LCOR) build?

A mixed-use building with 165 rental apartments (13 priced as workforce) and the public library on the bottom floor(s) as well as a 200+ car garage. District of Columbia Public Library (DCPL) will pay for the construction of the library.

The building’s footprint covers the entire library lot as well as 11,000 SF of the soccer field above ground. The garage will continue underground for another 60 feet, with excavation ending about 30 feet from Janney’s historic building.

LCOR will not be building any facilities for Janney Elementary School.

Why is this project objectionable?

1. IT WILL FURTHER DELAY THE LIBRARY: Negotiations have already delayed the reconstruction of our library by nine months. The deal itself would delay its re-opening by at least an additional two years because it will require a radical redesign of the library and a series of new/independent regulatory approvals including environmental impact assessments. LCOR will also have to get construction financing for the private residential component before the library can be built. By contrast, DCPL’s stand-alone design is fully-funded and already approved. Without a PPP, we could have our library back by fall of 2010. If the LCOR deal were to go through, and all goes well, it would be 2013 before we have a full-service neighborhood library again. Our library has already been closed for more than four full years.

2. THE ONLY THING JANNEY GETS OUT OF THIS DEAL IS A SMALLER CAMPUS: Allowing private development on Janney’s campus will deprive the school of land needed for its expansion. DCPS’s modernization plan for Janney will relieve overcrowding and expand the school’s student population to 550. To do this, Janney’s interior space needs to double. Exterior facilities (a multipurpose playing field and various age-differentiated hard and soft scape playspaces) need to be preserved and expanded as well to serve a larger student body. By depriving Janney school of the use of its most versatile campus land, the LCOR deal virtually guarantees that the exterior facilities that DCPS’s own educational specifications mandate for a campus this size cannot be provided. The 11,000 SF it will consume above ground is significant – it’s equivalent in size to the footprint of the new wing. And the land above the underground garage is largely lost to campus planners as well – it can’t be built upon and it will no longer be large enough for a playing field. Janney’s SIT opposes this public-private project, which would shrink the school’s campus without providing more or better facilities, and which now risks delaying the school’s modernization. In a recent poll, Janney parents were opposed to the project by a margin of over 5:1.

3. THE PPP WILL HOLD OUR PUBLIC FACILITIES HOSTAGE TO THE VAGARIES OF CAPITAL AND HOUSING MARKETS: DCPL has the money in hand to build our library. LCOR does not have the money in hand to build its apartment building. If the two projects are combined, nothing gets built unless/until LCOR gets financing. DCPS has the bond authority necessary to raise the money to modernize Janney and it is eligible for additional stimulus funding targeted for school construction. But until the LCOR project is completed (or cancelled), DCPS can’t move forward on Janney’s addition. In these economic times, public financing is oriented toward getting things built as quickly as possible, whereas privately-financed projects are being delayed, postponed, or abandoned.

4. ALLOWING PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE LIMITS FUTURE USES OF THIS PUBLIC LAND: The construction of a nine-story multi-million dollar apartment building would prohibit any major expansion or reconfiguration of the library to meet future needs. Nor could the library ever be relocated and its land added to Janney’s campus to meet the school’s needs. Nor could complementary public facilities (e.g. a teen center) be co-located at this site.

5. ADDING 165 APARTMENTS AND A 200+ CAR GARAGE AT THIS LOCATION WILL OVERBURDEN THE SITE, ADD TRAFFIC AT AN ALREADY PROBLEMATIC INTERSECTION, AND POSE A VARIETY OF SECURITY AND SAFETY ISSUES. We already have 700 schoolchildren on this block (at Janney and St. Ann’s), moving between schools, playgrounds, and the library. Their safety is the community's paramount responsibility. There's no shortage of underdeveloped privately-owned land along upper Wisconsin Avenue. And housing built on those sites wouldn't compromise our school and library facilities.

What’s the financial benefit to the City?
A one-time payment that is unlikely to do more than cover the cost of providing school and library parking , subsidize the workforce units, and provide some compensation for losses associated with delay and redesign of the library. DCPL will still be paying for the construction of the library; DCPS will still be paying for the construction and renovation of the school’s facilities. There’s no free school or free library in this deal.

ANC and PTA/SIT testimony on Janney's place in the MFP queue

2009-02-10T11:03:00.009-05:00

Note that this testimony was presented before all of the FOIA documents used in the timeline were obtained. And see the postscript/response at the end of the two documents.

PUBLIC OVERSIGHT HEARING, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Vincent C. Gray, Chairman
"The Facilities Plan for District of Columbia Public Schools"
October 10, 2008

Testimony of Anne C. Sullivan, ANC 3E05

My name is Anne Sullivan, and I have lived in DC for 25 years. For fifteen years, I was a parent of children in DC’s public schools. For decades, most DCPS parents had little hope in the governments’ ability or desire to modernize and expand the public school facilities, let alone make basic repairs and perform necessary maintenance work. Now there is a new agency with an outstanding leader, Allen Lew, for school facilities, and a new promise from the government in the form of the DCPS Master Facilities Plan to repair, upgrade, modernize, expand and maintain schools on an abbreviated timeline.

While the plan is long on ambition, it is short on details. Still, the document is an attempt to provide efficient and fair plans to modernize schools according to the four core educational priorities set by Chancellor Rhee. Embedded in principle number three is the priority to appropriately expand schools with evidence of overcrowding and waiting lists. This is good, because just as there is a sense of urgency to upgrade schools recently configured to receive an influx of new students, so should there be a sense of urgency for schools that are grossly overcrowded, expected to grow even larger, and have a long waiting list of students. This makes sense in the context of the principle to accommodate emerging/existing feeder patterns, enrollment trends and school clusters.

In general, it is easy to follow the modernization queue of schools according to this priority, but there is one glaring exception: Janney Elementary School. Janney was in the #8 spot in line with a planned modernization and expansion scheduled in 2010 to 2012 (?), according to a March 31, 2008 consultant’s draft of the modernization queue. However, Janney has now been moved to near the end of the queue, with a 2013 -2014 time frame for the construction needed to accommodate a burgeoning student population. There is only one other school that comes close to the 133% overcapacity that Janney experiences, and that school (Burrville Elementary, at 132%) is scheduled for a 2010 modernization and expansion. The question must be asked: Why has an overcrowded, blue-ribbon award winning school with a waiting list of 155 students been kicked to the end of the line while schools with little or no overcrowding have been moved up ahead of Janney?

The answer is a political one.

The Ward 3 Council Member, the former Janney principal, and a group of Janney Elementary School parents started advocating for a land sale of part of Janney’s campus and development rights above the site of the planned Tenley-Friendship Library branch back in the beginning of 2007. The motivation for the school group was to force the modernization and expansion of the school ahead in the line. The Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development issued an RFP for the site in October of 2007, and three developers’ proposals were shown to the community in February of 2008. It was obvious to all community stakeholders that none of the proposals would be acceptable; all three would result in Janney’s campus being too small to accommodate the needed expansion and the needed P.E. playing field. For those who were concerned with the library plans, it was distressing to note that the land sale and subsequent development would delay the new library by at least two years and cause millions of dollars in costs associated with that delay.

In spite of nearly unanimous rejection of the proposals, Mayor Fenty, with the Ward 3Council Member standing at his side in support, issued a press release on July 10, 2008, announcing the selection of LCOR as the development partner for the site.

Shortly thereafter, the Ward 3 Council Member forwarded a letter to Deputy Mayor Albert from a Janney parent outlining concerns that if Janney was scheduled for a modernization and expansion in 2010 without a land sale, then surely the community would opt out of the proposed land sale. This was of great enough concern to both the Janney parent and the Council Member to urge the Deputy Mayor to make sure that the land sale was perceived as the ticket to moving Janney ahead in the queue.

I believe there were two possible reasons that the newly announced modernization queue put Janney back at the end of the line: either the political decision was made to put it there to force community acceptance of the land sale to move Janney back toward the front, or Allen Lew has wisely realized that any land sale and associated Planned Unit Development (PUD) will take years to finalize, and that Janney needed to be moved back to accommodate that reality.

In either case, it is unfair that the current and future students of Janney Elementary School have to postpone having a modernized and expanded learning environment because of the desire to accommodate a large residential building on their campus.

I urge the Council, Mayor, Chancellor and Executive Director Allen Y. Lew to immediately halt all plans for any type of land sale on Janney Elementary School’s campus and to move the school forward to its rightful position in the modernization queue. I believe that fairness should trump politics.

Written Testimony submitted to the Council on October 24, 2008

by the Janney Elementary School PTA and SIT

We are deeply appreciative of this opportunity to share thoughts and concerns from the community and families of Janney Elementary School with the DC Council Members through this written testimony. We hope that our information and comments will be considered in the process of completing an effective plan for improving and expanding the school buildings serving our DC Public School students and communities.

This is a critical time as the proposed Master Facilities Plan is considered by the Council Members. Thanks in larger part to your ongoing commitment to improving the DCPS system, Janney Elementary School has greatly benefitted in the last few years. The Blitz efforts have markedly improved our classrooms and common spaces, and the budget has supported critically important educational and service program improvements at our school. The commitment of over $1 billion for facilities improvements, expansions, and additions will help address a serious backlog and take a true giant step towards providing the school facilities essential to effective learning and a brighter future for ALL DC Public School students. Your commitment – time, attention, and funding – is recognized and greatly appreciated by our school community.

As to the Master Facilities Plan as proposed, our testimony focuses on four areas. These include:

Appreciation for the priority given to meeting DCPS’ needs for facilities upgrades and improvements;
Recognition of the guiding education-based principles behind a strategic MFP;
Understanding of the need to address years of deferred facilities maintenance at far too many elementary schools;
Requesting appropriate consideration be extended to elementary school
overcrowding in amending the MFP.

First, we applaud the commitment the Council and other city leaders are considering toward dedicating $1.3 billion to projects that would “place all DC children in dramatically improved buildings by 2014.” That is an acceleration over prior plans, and places priority on addressing chronic and critical needs across all corners of our city.

Second, we appreciate the guiding principals behind the MFP. The large and complex assignment to be tackled through the Master Facilities Plan certainly necessitates a carefully constructed set of principles and priorities to be consistently and accurately applied. As we reviewed the details of the proposed MFP, we saw evidence of the considerable work entailed in its development.

Third, we understand the prioritization of modernization of elementary school classrooms and other instructional space. Years of deferred (no) maintenance at far too many buildings have left some in shockingly poor repair. At Janney Elementary, our basic facilities are in reasonably good repair. But this is a basic problem affecting many other elementary schools, and their students and families deserve prompt action.

Fourth, we ask for due consideration to overcrowding conditions at schools that have suffered and continue to grapple with severe overcrowding and lack of sufficient and appropriate facilities. The four “Guiding Principles” developed by the DC Public School Chancellor’s office included: (1) Modernize/enhance Classrooms; (2) Ensure Building Support Programs; (3) Accommodate Emerging/Existing Feeder Patterns, Enrollment Trends and School Clusters: and (4) Leverage the School as a Community Asset.

We ask the Council’s help in ensuring an important question is addressed by those responsible for the MFP and the implementation of the construction plan. Were these principles consistently and rigorously applied, using accurate information, in the development of the list of project priorities and schedules included in the MFP?

The information and level of detail provided in the MFP make it a challenge to assess if the four principles have been followed in the cases of severely overcrowded schools. Within DCPS, overcrowding is a less common challenge than schools with facility capacities that exceed their current or projected enrollment. While overcrowding may be less common, it is certainly injurious to the learning environment and performance of students. Yet the MFP gives limited consideration to addressing overcrowding in some elementary schools.

Janney Elementary School is a great school with a growing problem. Our building was constructed in 1925 with few upgrades and no additions since that date. The facility is limited, but enrollment is large and growing. Consider these facts based on DCPS data:

With a capacity of 364 students, Janney enrollment has breached 500 and will grow to 550.
We already have five classrooms in trailers.
Janney Elementary has the second highest utilization rate of all elementary schools in the system at 133%. Oyster School, a new building, has the only utilization rate higher than Janney’s;
At Janney, there are 90 square feet per student – far below the 140 square foot standard. Our enrollment places us as the third worst elementary school on this standard.
Our Multipurpose Room is too small to serve as either a cafeteria, gym, or auditorium – yet it shoulders all three duties.
A single set of boys and girls bathrooms on the first floor of a three story building is inadequate for the nearly 500 students. It is nearly impossible to keep the bathrooms clean and supplied with towels, soap and toilet paper. With 64 adults on the Janney staff there is often a queue for the single toilet in the staff lounge. The lack of adequate bathroom facilities is a serious health and sanitation issue.
The building is not compliant with Americans with Disability Act accessibility standards.

As the Council, Mayor, DCPS, and Office of Public Education Facilities Management continue to consider revising the MFP as proposed, we ask consideration of and response to three questions:

Have the pressures of constant, continued, and growing overcrowding been given due consideration in the MFP? As we review the MFP details, our concern centers on the delay of Janney School’s expansion to 2014 -- at the end of a long line for improvements. Janney would receive “modernization” focused in improving the appearance and functionality of classroom and other instructional space in 2013. We certainly appreciate that Janney is in the MFP in 2014 for an addition to address our space crunch. But instructional quality at Janney and all of our students are affected on a daily basis by the highest utilization rates, lowest space allotment/student, and substandard facilities found across the elementary schools. Janney School’s placement seems to be the result in part of inconsistent application of the four guiding principles established by the DCPS Chancellor’s Office. In our parents’ discussion at the public meetings on the MFP with OPEFM officials, it has become clear that overcrowding was not given due consideration in the establishment of the priorities and schedule for projects.

Will the MFP be amended to provide accurate and current information on all DCPS Schools? How will corrections be considered in revising the priorities and schedule set in the MFP? There were errors of fact in the MFP details on Janney Elementary School.

These included:

The MFP lists Janney as having a Gym, Auditorium, and Multipurpose Room. We have a single room that serves – inadequately – all three purposes. For example, our students are divided into three groups and have just 20 minutes for lunch each noon hour for sitting and eating their lunches. Indoor gym class scheduling is a challenge. And school assemblies overtax the available space on a regular basis.
With over 500 students in a building with a capacity for only 364, we have relied for years on trailers for additional space. The School Profile in the MFP indicates we have 1 Expansion (Portable). We have three trailers and they are fully utilized as 5 classroom spaces.
The School Profile in the MFP is inaccurate in the class configuration at Janney. We have been able to accommodate only 1 Pre-K class to date due to a lack of classrooms. The School Profile indicates 2 Pre-School, 4 Pre-Kindergarten, and 4 Kindergarten classes at Janney. Due to a lack of classroom spaces, we have 1 Pre-K and 3 Kindergarten Classrooms. Because of classroom space limits, Janney School cannot meet the DCPS and Council goal of offering Pre-K to our community. The Profile also lists 4 Art Rooms, 2 Media Centers, 1 Home Economics Room, and 1 Science Lab. We have a single Art Room made from a converted classroom space. We have a modest library which includes a computer lab. The 2 Media Centers, 1 Home Economics, and 1 Science lab listed in the School Profile do not exist at Janney.

Clearly, there are evident problems with the Janney Elementary School data used in the MFP. It may be possible that comparable errors have been made with other schools. Is there an opportunity to correct the data used in setting the MFP? And if so, how will corrections be factored in to revising the MFP’s priorities and schedules?

Can OPEFM consider trading the classroom modernization scheduled for 2013 in order to expedite the expansion scheduled for 2014? Janney Elementary School has invested in maintenance and our community has put both funds and people power in to maintaining and improving the grounds and classroom conditions. Given the pressure of overcrowding, an expansion at an earlier date may be preferable over classroom modernization to be followed by expansion.

In conclusion, we strongly believe the four guiding principles must be consistently applied in setting the MFP. To date, the Plan seems not to adequately recognize the constant pressure of severe overcrowding at some elementary schools. Specifically, we see a compelling case for moving forward to an earlier date the expansion so greatly needed by Janney Elementary School. The school has been and is projected to continue to face severe overcrowding throughout the next five years. Our existing facilities rated at a capacity of 364 students are stretched to the breaking point by our current enrollment of over 500 pupils. Long before this revised MFP was released, in May 2007, a small group of concerned parents collected over 300 signatures of Janney Parents and other community members on a petition calling for the Council and Mayor to support an addition at our school at the earliest possible date. Those 300 signers were added in only a week’s effort. It is a tangible sign of the abiding community interest in and support for the actions we again request through this testimony.

On behalf of the Janney Elementary School community – the students, the PTA, and the SIT – thanks again to the Council Members for making education reform and facilities improvements among the highest priorities in our city. We hope the MFP will be revised, the Janney expansion will be scheduled earlier, and the final plan will meet with your approval and support.

original available in pdf format at: http://www.janneyschool.org/PTASITPPP/JanneyMFPTestimonyOct2008.pdf

And a postscript:

SIT Minutes Nov 25, 2008 Facilities Committee

Andrew noted that according to Anthony DeGuzman at DCPS Janney’s place in the MFP is likely to be advanced, regardless of the outcome of the PPP. But no promises or stipulations were officially made. The Freedom of Information Act documents obtained by the ANC meant downtown got called on Janney students’ needs not being prioritized in the MFP placement according to guiding principles of DCPS assessments.

http://www.janneyschool.org/PTASITPPP/SIT_Minutes/SIT%20Fall2006-2009/2008_Nov_SIT_minutes.pdf

In Which Chancellor Rhee joins DM Albert's Extortion Ring?

2009-02-07T07:46:00.007-05:00

From the Janney School website:

January 2009

On January 30, the SIT met with Chancellor Rhee, members of her staff, Eric Scott (DMPED) and Matt Troy (DMPED) to discuss Janney's position in the draft Master Facilities Plan and the proposed PPP. Chancellor Rhee stated that Janney is slated to begin expansion in 2014 if a PPP is not approved. She also confirmed that expansion would begin earlier if a PPP is approved. Her office could not provide a firm date for expansion if a PPP is approved, but confirmed that expansion under a PPP could begin as early as 2010, as the SIT has reported in prior updates. The Chancellor summarized what she sees as compelling reasons to favor a PPP but said she would make a decision only after she receives community feedback on the latest LCOR proposal.

Here are the SIT's minutes from the meeting:

SIT Meeting with Chancellor Michelle Rhee, January 30, 2009

DCPS: Chancellor Michelle Rhee, Eric Lerum, Anthony DeGuzman; SIT: Tawana Franklin, Karen Langford, Andrew Smiles, Shellie Wood, Dr Karen Crews, Kirk Rankin, Marijke Gero, Karen Martin, Malin Kerwin, Mary Osterman, Jane Malhotra; PTA: Lucy Smiles

Chancellor Rhee began by apologizing. After the meeting with the 2007-08 SIT one year ago, she felt that the group was interested in exploring a PPP as long as the main concerns – preserving green space for Janney, and ensuring that Janney would benefit from the deal – would be addressed. She felt it would be okay to push for the project with that in mind. She must look across all of DC to prioritize facility needs. Janney would get extra money, and the student population would grow, so the PPP appeared to be a win-win. Although she lost direct communication with the SIT, she always told the mayor that if the school doesn’t get out of it what they need, it’s a no-go.

Through DMPED, lots of frustrating things occurred. She saw specific emails about green space, but didn’t realize there was a lack of good information.

It is her belief that we can come up with a situation that will benefit the school. The most recent proposal – with an increase of green space, moving up the timeline for Janney in the MFP, and additional money that the PPP will put toward the renovation of outdoor facilities – in her view, makes sense. Much went wrong in the process. Other interests were driving things. She and the mayor never wavered on the fact that this would not go through unless the school would benefit from it.

She said that the best next steps need to be determined, and she will chart a course to ensure that she is fully aware of what is going on.

Kirk Rankin thanked the Chancellor for taking the time to meet with the SIT. He noted that last year was a different time and group. That the rationale of getting advanced in the queue has changed. That the Janney community is now confident that Alan Lew and Chancellor Rhee would get Janney’s facility needs addressed without need to give up land. The PPP appears to be more of a land sale. How much would we give up? When we get rebuilt is what’s important. Through FOIA’d documents, there appears to have been political manipulation showing Janney had been scheduled for a 2010 renovation but it was moved later to the end of the queue to make a PPP more attractive. Janney is a high-achieving, overcrowded school that needs to be expanded.

Chancellor Rhee noted that the only official documents released have Janney in 2014. If we move with the PPP, the timeline will move up. Drafts go back and forth all the time.

Kirk said the draft reflects informed decisions made be people such as Anthony deGuzman, her own assistant, who believed that, based on the guiding principles of the MFP, Janney’s needs should be addressed soon.

Chancellor Rhee responded that every school feels that way. Her first focus is on classroom environment and by that standard, Janney’s issues are not the top priority. There are schools in Ward 8 with deplorable conditions. Many schools have demountables. She understands that Janney is bursting at the seams but some schools’ conditions are incredibly bad. She does not play in the politics of it and that is not how she makes her decisions.

Kirk agreed that many school’s facility problems are great, but that Janney’s peculiar needs are around capacity. Chancellor Rhee said she understood that Janney SIT would by definition be advocating for our school’s needs. Kirk asked where is Janney in the MFP now. Chancellor Rhee answered that her goal is to combine all that needs to happen citywide, and that Janney’s place in the MFP queue would be dependent on the PPP.

Kirk clarified that if there is no PPP, Janney would be modernized and expanded beginning in 2014. Chancellor Rhee confirmed this but noted that she does not know the details. Andrew Smiles brought up the MFP guiding principles, suggesting that Janney’s needs should be addressed based on the merits of our case. Chancellor Rhee responded that Janney’s expansion/modernization without the PPP would be slated for last on the list. That the guiding principles first focus on classrooms, and that having demountables is not considered a negative classroom experience. That demountables are beautiful compared to some of the classrooms in buildings across the city.

One person confirmed that she was aware that Janney has just one set of bathrooms on the first floor for the 500 students. That there is just one adult toilet for the staff. Again, Kirk noted that capacity is our issue, not condition.

Chancellor Rhee said that expansion of schools is not a priority. We have to choose. The mayor and Alan Lew want the former 20-year MFP compressed so that all schools across the city would have needs addressed in the next five years.

Kirk responded that the Janney community, the only population that conceivably benefits from the plan, opposes it by a margin of five to one, and would prefer to wait until 2014 and not have any part in a PPP. No one in the community, execept for the few hardy souls that DMPED meets with, supports this plan. The library has been hung out to dry, and they are mad at us for the delays caused by entertaining this project for the last five years. This is extremely divisive in the neighborhood. The broader community has looked repeatedly at the concepts, the Janney community has looked at all the plans, and we are not interested, we are willing to take a pass. He asked the Chancellor if she will listen to us.

Chancellor Rhee said she has to look at the facts and weigh in. She’ll have to make a decision. With the current plan it appears that there would be increased green space, the modernizing of the school’s outdoor facilities (which Janney would not get if it waited until 2014), and everything would happen earlier.

Andrew remarked that no one saw 2014 as getting anything less. Lucy Smiles noted that we want the library and the school’s public space preserved. We have to consider what we want the space to look like in 100 years. Chancellor Rhee noted that she is looking at the proposal from the school’s purview so she is focused on that point of view. Lucy affirmed that the building of a nice library of great value to the community. Jane Malhotra said that the library is an educational asset to the community as well, and the lack of it for five years has had a negative impact not only on access to knowledge for the kids at Janney, but on the students at Deal and Wilson as well, where school libraries are sorely lacking.

Shellie Wood noted that one year ago when the SIT met with the Chancellor, there was a nice sentiment about the project. People were open about looking at the possibility. But plans eroded. There is a huge trust issue. Wrong numbers were used to make it appear that we were getting more green space in the proposal.

Chancellor Rhee responded that she wanted the back and forth dialog on what was being proposed. She said she has to look at what is currently being proposed. We won’t move forward til we all look at it.

Kirk asked the Chancellor how much money is being generated from the sale of the land.

She said she didn’t know. She asked Anthony DeGuzman, and he said they would need to ask the DMPED people who were waiting outside the conference room.

Kirk asked if she had not seen a term sheet. Chancellor Rhee said there are certain things she knows. She doesn’t know how much money is coming through the deal, but there is an upside of moving forward with a PPP vs. a delay if we didn’t.

Kirk asked about the status of the library. That Neil Albert’s letter says that the library has to be integrated into the structure. This would mean a delay to the library 18-20 months post PUD approval. This consideration should be in the Chancellor’s analysis, as five years has been the wait already. Chancellor Rhee said this was helpful to know.

Kirk confirmed that the Janney community will be engaged in the design process with or without a PPP. Chancellor Rhee agreed but that the plans could look different. Kirk asked what is the scale of the Janney addition and what is the status on the educational specifications. DeGuzman said they want to move quickly with the Ed Specs. Lucy emphasized to the Chancellor that the community is overwhelmingly against this.

Kirk asked about the process for dispossessing land and that this would need council approval and that would require Councilmember Cheh’s support. Chancellor Rhee said that how the council operates can be unclear and that, while it would require council approval, she and the Mayor have placed a focus on education that the council recognizes.

Lucy noted that the library and the school will be impacted by a large building right there. Dr. Crews stated that Oyster teachers had problems with not enough teacher parking in the garage when more teachers were added. What would happen if Janney added another 20 teachers after the project?

Chancellor Rhee said she doesn’t care about the development aspect of the deal. She is willing to fight with DMPED to make sure the school’s needs are addressed first.

Additional DC staff joined the meeting:
Sam Yeung (OPFM), Tony Robinson (OPFM), Eric Scott (DMPED), Matt Troy (DMPED)

DeGuzman notes that the ed specs call for a 35-40,000 sq ft addition for Janney.

Chancellor Rhee asked if the latest plans have been seen. Eric Scott said they are now up on their website. Chancellor Rhee said she wants to have the proposal. Doesn’t want anyone in the school community to think it’s the end all and be all. There is a process to resolve problems. The plans may look glossy and thus appear decided but they are not. DeGuzman noted that the plans have suffered more from a lack of glossy.

E. Scott noted that there have been many iterations of the plan. He said they sought community feedback. The changes they have made are a result of community feedback. At some point they will reach a stopping point.

Chancellor Rhee responded that there is a natural progression of back and forth but the impression has been that there’s not been much opportunity for input. Andrew Smiles asked about the term sheet – as a DC tax payer, how much would be put into the city coffers from this deal?

Matt Troy asked if he meant how much would be given to DCPS. He said it changes as the building plans change, and the market is getting worse. There has been a major downshift even since two weeks earlier. The original proposal using to justify – or not justify, but measure – what would come to Janney, has changed. It is now a 165 unit building. They are looking at somewhere between $5-7 million. Nobody is lending anymore.

Andrew Smiles said say it was seven million. Is some used to move Janney up in the queue, and some for outdoor enhancements and renovations? E. Scott said it would not be earmarked for any specific use. Jane asked about the library part of the mixed use site – what about the legislation saying revenue from library property/air rights must be used for library purposes? Troy responded that he has read the entire legislation and that, because the property also includes school land, the funds do not have to be directed to DCPL specifically but to any public benefit.

Kirk asked when the term sheet would be confirmed. Troy said there would be a readjusted capital appraisal today or tomorrow. Developing the term sheet had been slow as it has taken a back seat to the time DMPED has been spending on collecting community outreach. (Laughter and brow-raising from some SIT members.) Troy continued that they expect a term sheet in mid-February.

Chancellor Rhee thanked everyone for coming. Malin asked to make one more comment: that the SIT is looking out for the best interests of the school, and that it is not the building that makes Janney, but the community of people inside it that make Janney vibrant. And the majority of this community – six to one – do not want this PPP.

Chancellor Rhee said she understood. But she believes that Janney parents were responding this way more due to a widespread lack of understanding of what has gone on. It is based on fear of what may have been going on. Folks should understand what took place and where we are now.

Karen Martin asked what is the time line moving forward, so that we can get back to our community with some next steps. Chancellor Rhee said that the SIT, DeGuzman and E. Scott should agree on a timeline to get information out there, and clarify misperceptions of what’s out there and why. DeGuzman said he would set up a follow up meeting with the SIT, DCPS, DMPED and OPFM. Jane asked if DCPL shouldn’t be included. DeGuzman said he would check with the chancellor. Karen and Andrew asked when is DMPED’s community meeting to present the final plan. Dates will be scheduled around Janney availability but sometime in mid-February. Kirk asked if Chancellor Rhee would allow the people who wrote the FOIA’d emails to meet with the SIT to explain what happened, including the conctractor Dunleavy. She said yes.

Original PDF posted at http://www.janneyschool.org/PTASITPPP/SIT_Minutes/SIT%20Fall2006-2009/RheeMinutesJan09.pdf

The Latest LCOR Site Plans (dated January 21st)

2009-01-29T12:33:00.004-05:00

Variations on a theme. More trimming of edges and rearranging heights to retain SF while preserving "green space." The cynical/fictional garage entrance/exit onto Wisconsin Avenue remains. And the new addition is that the apartment building's courtyard opens onto Janney. What's that about? Seems like a bad idea for both the school and the residents.

Here are the links:

http://www.dcbiz.dc.gov/dmped/frames.asp?doc=/dmped/lib/dmped/tenley20090121_proposed_conceptual_site_plan.pdf

http://www.dcbiz.dc.gov/dmped/frames.asp?doc=/dmped/lib/dmped/20090121_tenleysiteareas.pdf

Janney Parents endorse SIT's decision to withdraw support for a PPP

2009-01-28T18:52:00.004-05:00

The results of the SIT's poll of Janney parents are in. By a 5:1 margin, respondents approved of the SIT's decision to oppose the LCOR deal.

Here's the report from the January 27th edition of the Janney PTA Newsletter:

"The SIT Corner:

Thanks to all who responded to the PPP survey which went home last Wednesday. We debated the survey within the SIT and it took a while to finalize the langauge and prepare it for distribution. We apologize for the short turn around time. The preliminary results are that of those repsonding, 61 support the SIT's position, 12 oppose, and 2 offered comments alone.

We did not expect unanimity of responses and we understand that there are some within the community who may not agree with us. To those of you who do not support the SIT's position, please stay engaged and feel free to talk with us as events devlop. Please remember that the SIT is committed to Janney's future, and while some of us may disagree, we all share a common desire to help Janney be the best school it can be.

We do not have a firm date for a community meeting yet but we expect it to occur sometime in early February. We will certainly let you know as soon as it is scheduled. In the meantime we will continue to advocate for modernization and an addition to Janney as soon as possible. Thanks again and, as always, we welcome your comments.

Kirk Rankin
Chair, Janney School Improvement Team"

Two months later, Neil Albert finally responds...

2009-01-21T18:55:00.008-05:00

Last October, Council Members Mary Cheh and Kwame Brown asked Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Neil Albert to pull the plug on what they called the "fatally flawed" LCOR deal for a mixed-use residential project at the Tenley Library/Janney Elementary site. The text of that letter is available here: http://ttownrfp.blogspot.com/2008/11/cms-cheh-and-brown-ask-mayor-to-abandon.html The two CMs requested a reply by November 7th, but Albert blew them off -- although he did go to the media with his "damn the Council, full speed ahead!" message.

Now, two months later, he's given them the courtesy of a direct response. Here it is:

[[click image to enlarge]]

Rebuttal of DM Albert's letter to CMs Cheh and Brown

2009-01-21T18:40:00.002-05:00

Sent January 16, 2009

Dear Councilmembers Cheh and Brown:

We are writing to point out a number of misrepresentations made by Deputy Mayor Neil Albert in his January 12th letter regarding the proposed public-private partnership involving the Tenley-Friendship Library and Bernard T. Janney Elementary School. As you both know, we have been actively engaged in work related to this project for the past 20 months and, in the course of our efforts, have met repeatedly with community members, developers, and government officials.

First and foremost, we want you to realize that there have been no serious re-design efforts on LCOR’s part over the past six months. In fact, whenever community stakeholders point out a problem with LCOR’s plans, the response has been to manipulate the data and/or images rather than to try to solve the problem. So, for example, we’re still seeing a soccer field where one goal would be somewhere between 9 and 12 feet higher than the other, as well as a driveway on Wisconsin Avenue that will never make it through the PUD process, given the volume of traffic associated with the 200+ car garage it serves. In short, LCOR, with DMPED’s aid and encouragement, is deliberately presenting unrealistic scenarios in an attempt to sell the project to the Council and the community. Neither DMPED nor LCOR seems to have any interest in making this a better project – they just want to seal this deal, secure in the knowledge that, once they have a deal, all of these problems will be someone else’s responsibility.

It’s ironic to hear DM Albert “hope that the members of the community will engage constructively” when his office has ignored every constructive suggestion the community has made throughout this process. The wisdom of some of those suggestions – e.g. to include community/school representatives on the selection panel; to do ed specs for the Janney campus and a concept plan showing how all of the required educational facilities for an elementary school of 550 can be provided onsite before making any decision about whether/how much/what land should be devoted to private use – has already been vindicated. Other suggestions – such as ANC’s request that the RFP require the private partner to come to the table with financing in hand – anticipate (and would have helped avert) problems likely to emerge in the near future if this project moves forward.

Secondly, we want to point out that DM Albert’s claims about the advantages of this project are largely specious. The statement that “preliminary estimates show that DC Public Library will save approximately half of its construction budget under this mixed-use scenario” (or 5 million dollars) flatly contradicts LCOR’s estimate in September of 2008 that the library could save about $800,000 in construction costs as a result of mixed-use. Even that figure was an overestimation because LCOR acknowledged that it hadn’t offset the savings by taking into account increased costs associated with redesign and construction delays. Given that the private/profit-making component of the project may have gotten slightly smaller since September, it seems unlikely that the construction cost savings for the library could have more than sextupled since then.

Even less persuasive, is DMPED’s claim that LCOR’s proposal will provide a means for moving Janney up in DCPS’s modernization queue. In fact, as FOIA’d documents demonstrate, a last-minute political intervention was made to move Janney from its rightful place near the front of DCPS’s facilities modernization line to the tail end. This intervention was apparently designed to accommodate a public-private partnership. As DCPS’s own facilities expert immediately pointed out, relegating Janney to the end of the modernization queue “contradicts the guiding principles” of the Master Facilities Plan.

Janney’s place in DCPS’s facilities queue is not yet fixed. The MFP released last September was a draft and Janney’s position has been controverted both within DCPS and in public testimony before the Council. There is absolutely no reason why Janney cannot be renovated and expanded more quickly without a public-private partnership. The money is available. Post-closures, DCPS desperately needs to expand capacity at high-performing schools that can serve as receivers under NCLB standards. And Janney remains one of DCPS’s most over-crowded campuses with a waiting list of over 150 students.

By contrast, if the PPP moves forward, LCOR’s need for Council approval of the deal, as well as a PUD for the project, necessarily puts Janney’s addition on hold. And without a new addition, the only way to renovate the existing building, would be to send the students off campus. So either the renovations wait for the addition or they wait for swing space to become available. The bottom line is that, at this point, the PPP can only delay Janney’s modernization.

Finally, DMPED still doesn’t seem to understand the facilities issues involved. “No net loss of green space” has never been an appropriate criterion for evaluating this project’s impact on Janney. Given the anticipated expansion in its capacity, as well as the doubling of the amount of its built space, the challenge involved in modernizing Janney will be to enable its outdoor educational facilities to expand in order to keep pace with its indoor facilities. “Green space” per se isn’t what’s at issue. Janney needs programmable outdoor space that can be used to provide the field needed for PE instruction as well as the various age-differentiated hard- and soft-scape play areas mandated by DCPS’s current educational specifications for an elementary school campus of 550 students.

While a mixed-use project at this site may have appeared promising in theory, a year’s worth of attempts to translate that theory into practice have not borne fruit. Three different development teams, each of whom has had the opportunity to present revised or alternative designs, have tackled this project. We’ve seen lots of site plans over the past year, but no one has been able come up with a concrete proposal that has garnered the support of even one local stakeholder group. In fact, at this point, a strong consensus has emerged that our community will be better served by devoting all of the publicly-owned land at the Wisconsin and Albemarle site to school and library use and entrusting these two construction projects to DCPL and OPEFM rather than involving a private developer. ANC 3E, the Janney SIT, the Friends of the Tenley-Friendship Library, as well as a number of other civic associations and neighboring property-owners have all espoused this position.

And it’s not just the community that has reached this conclusion. The Library’s Board of Trustees announced at its November 19th meeting (and apparently affirmed earlier this week, after seeing DM Albert’s letter) that it has instructed Ginnie Cooper to move forward with the already-funded and designed standalone reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship branch. And the Janney design and construction project itself has already been handed back to DCPS. LCOR isn’t building anything for the school at this point – it’s just delaying the school’s modernization (by first stalling and then extending construction at the library site) and depriving Janney of a part of its campus.

Frankly, LCOR and DMPED seem to be the only parties that want this deal – yet six months into negotiations, even they do not seem to have managed to reach agreement on something as basic as a term sheet. As DMPED’s website indicates, no such agreement had been reached as of December 31, 2008.

The bottom line is that, after two years of work on this project, DMPED has no agency buy-in and no community support. That’s because Neil Albert’s office seems inclined to get this deal “by any means necessary” –- including sacrificing public facilities needs to subsidize private development. In a tight credit market, even if Albert ultimately offers LCOR a deal so enticing that it signs on the dotted line, there’s no guarantee that LCOR will have the financing to move forward once it clears the political and regulatory hurdles that the project still faces (in part because DMPED failed to seek a timely decision regarding whether the public land in question was actually surplus). By contrast, DCPL has both construction financing and necessary design approval in hand.

It has become increasingly clear that continued negotiations over a public-private partnership at this site are setting us back rather than moving us forward toward the broadly-shared goals of providing improved public school facilities and reinvigorating the dead space created by the premature closing of our branch library. Already, our library’s reconstruction has been delayed an additional 6 months by these discussions. And that’s after a delay which has already extended four years. Each of the other four neighborhood libraries shuttered at the end of 2004 broke ground last December. There’s a big hole where our library used to be -– and while other CMs are cutting ribbons in 2010, we’ll be lucky if ground has been broken on this project before the next election cycle is over.

It is time for the Council to step in and pull the plug on this project. Apparently the opposition of individual Councilmembers to LCOR’s proposal has not deterred DM Albert from moving forward with it. The Council as a whole needs to step in and reassert its role as a co-equal branch and a custodian of public land. Your colleagues will follow your lead on this matter – as Ward CM, as Committee Chairs, and as early proponents of exploring a mixed-use project at this site, it is up to you to let them know that DMPED’s efforts have failed and that, conversely, DCPL and OPEFM seem ready, willing, and able to rebuild our library and modernize our school.

Sincerely,

Sue Hemberger, Anne Sullivan, Daniel Carozza, and Amy McVey

CM Cheh's and Brown's response to Neil Albert's letter

2009-01-21T18:38:00.000-05:00

See how little LCOR's site plans have changed since September

2009-01-21T18:37:00.011-05:00

Last week, I sent the following note to CMs Cheh and Brown, along with the three images provided below:

I've attached a pdf including images of LCOR's site plans for the PPP as they were presented to community members (and published on DMPED's website) in October, November, and December. I think they bear out the claim that very little substantive revision -- and no attempt at problem-solving --has taken place over the course of the past four months.

The September plan (which we saw on boards but never had a printout of) was essentially the same as October's. To my knowledge, that was the first design community members saw after the Mayor's July 10th selection announcement. The major changes from LCOR 's original proposal (presented February 28th) have been to shift the base of the mixed use-building south and east (up to the property line in each case) and to move the driveway from Albemarle to Wisconsin Avenue. The building's footprint and overall square footage seem to have remained constant throughout.

And, of course, somewhere between February and September the decision was made that Allen Lew rather than LCOR would modernize Janney's campus. Once that decision was made, LCOR relocated the school's addition and dramatically shrunk its footprint in all of its "Proposed Conceptual Site Plan" images. Whether the "potential" locations and dimensions depicted are realistic or bear any resemblance to what DCPS would actually build has not been established.

[[click image to enlarge]]

No response (yet?) from either Cheh or Brown to our letter or this follow-up. But given that they characterized the first plan as "fatally flawed," it's hard to see why the third suddenly shows "promise of meeting the[ir] essential requirements." Not much has changed and the "green space" reclaimed by cutting out the southwest corner of the residential building doesn't really benefit Janney in any way. It's too small, awkwardly-shaped, and badly-located to be used as a playground or built on.

Special Committee's Status Report on the Janney Elementary/Tenley-Friendship Library PPP

2008-11-15T09:02:00.006-05:00

Presented at ANC 3E’s November 13, 2008 Public Meeting

CHEH-BROWN LETTER #4

On October 29th, Councilmembers Mary Cheh and Kwame Brown (chair of the Committee on Economic Development) wrote to Mayor Adrian Fenty asking him to terminate negotiations with LCOR and allow the reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship branch to move forward. Their letter requested a response from the Mayor by November 7th. It is our understanding that no such response has been forthcoming.

That said, the day after the Cheh-Brown letter was released, Deputy Mayor Neil Albert indicated to the media that his office plans to move forward with the project. And DMPED refused ANC 3E’s request to cancel or postpone a previously-scheduled meeting with LCOR until after November 7th. Full speed ahead seems to be the Administration's stance.

MEETINGS WITH LCOR/DMPED

Since our last report, ANC Commissioners and Special Committee Members have met twice with LCOR at DMPED’s request. These meetings were held on October 17th (attended by Matt Frumin and Sue Hemberger) and November 3rd (attended by Anne Sullivan, Danny Carozza, and Sue Hemberger). The site plans shown at those meetings included a number of changes from the plans viewed in September.

CHANGES:

1. The underground garage now extends 50 feet beyond the edge of the residential building. This means that the edge of excavation/construction will be no more than 30 feet from the eastern façade of Janney’s historic building. Longer-term, it probably also means that the remains of the soccer field will be land that is of very limited utility to the school. Presumably, it can’t be built on, nor can it be used as a playing field. About all that it could be used for is a playground and it’s not a great location for a playground, given proximity to both classroom and residential windows as well as the presence of a stairwell providing teachers with access to the garage.

2. At this point, DMPED is talking about 1:1 replacement of Janney’s parking spaces – “approximately 50 spaces, give or take a few” was the way they put it. Janney will not gain parking; its parking will simply be inconveniently relocated, as will the library’s (which will now have 9 spots in the underground structure rather than surface parking along the southern edge of the building's first floor).

3. The mixed use library/residential building has now been shifted at least 10 feet toward St. Ann’s. It will be built up to the property line, covering what used to be the driveway for the library. The building’s southern façade appears to be about 20-30 feet from St. Ann’s Academy.

4. Most of the library will now be covered with and surrounded by apartments. Except for a 20 foot edge along Wisconsin and a 10 foot sliver on the eastern edge of Albemarle, the library will be located underneath residences. As a result, the airy interiors of the previous design must now be riddled with columns to provide structural support for the interior walls of the apartments above. And the roof terrace option no longer seems possible. The design images aren’t detailed enough to indicate how incorporation of the library into a mixed-use building will affect the number and location of library windows. Ceiling heights are being preserved; two library floors will be equivalent to three residential floors.

Special Committee Members pointed out that the site plans appeared to be sales tools rather than realistic attempts to solve problems or even to show that the school's needs could be met once the residential/library building was constructed. We pointed out three crucial fictions that seemed to underlie these representations.

FICTIONS:

1. LCOR, relying on dated images, substantially overestimated the amount of land on Janney’s campus currently devoted to parking. Its site plan claimed that the parking lot was 17,450 SF when, in fact, it was including land that is used as hardtop play space and for a demountable. The plan also indicated that the footprint of LCOR’s building would consume 14,800 SF of Janney’s soccer field.

While the Special Committee has always pointed out that “no net loss of green space” is the wrong standard – the issue is athletic/playground facilities (not green space) and these facilities need to be increased (not simply preserved) to accommodate an increase in Janney’s student population – even this standard is clearly not being met.

Previously, LCOR had always acknowledged the fact that its building would consume a few thousand more square feet of Janney's land than it would replace by providing underground parking. The footprint of LCOR's residential building hasn’t changed, and the amount of parking LCOR will provide to Janney seems to be shrinking. Yet now LCOR is producing images which suggest that the project will produce a net gain in green space. The project certainly hasn't been modified to produce that result; LCOR (at DMPED's behest?) has simply changed its rhetoric.

Since our last meeting, yet another set of images have been posted on the web. LCOR responded to the revelation that it was overestimating the land currently devoted to parking at Janney by downwardly revising its already lowball estimate of how much of Janney’s land it will consume (without changing the footprint of its building). The same area previously represented as 14,800 SF is now labelled 14,500 SF. Then it reconfigured the outline of Janney's current parking lot to exclude some hardtop playspace but it still seems to include the land around and under the demountable. Given that the demountable is not going to be located in the underground garage, the inclusion seems to be motivated by the need to assert that Janney is getting more than it gives up.

This is symptomatic of what we’re dealing with at this point. The only material change in LCOR’s project since January is that LCOR will no longer be renovating the school or building its addition. In each new site plan, LCOR just moves massing in its building around (a few stories cut off on this corner and pushed over toward the center). LCOR hasn’t budged on the residential building’s footprint or on the number of units. We’re being treated to endless spinning and re-spinning of essentially the same universally-condemned project. And the response to any critique is not to solve the problem but to find a better way to obscure it.

2. The second fiction we pointed out was that LCOR’s “optional soccer field locations” were located on land with steep changes of grade and thus were costly and unrealistic options (and, of course, held out a promise LCOR itself wouldn’t be keeping. Allen Lew would be saddled with these unrealistic expectations.) One layout had a height differential of 9 feet between the two goals; another looked closer to 12 feet. Since LCOR’s own image had contour lines, this information was available to them. This was an intentional attempt to mislead – not a mistake based on ignorance.

The newest site plans show the soccer field relocated to a flatter area bordering Bon Secours where a swing set and play equipment are now located.

3. LCOR’s current site plans are premised on the assumption that the library’s driveway (which provided access to fewer than 10 parking spaces) will now serve as the sole vehicular access (for both entry and exit) to a 200+ car garage and loading dock area for a 174 unit apartment building. Given the facts that this curb cut is located on Wisconsin Avenue just south of the Wisconsin and Albemarle intersection and that it abuts St. Ann’s driveway, it seems unfathomable that DDOT would allow such an arrangement. More likely, the driveway would be relocated to the site LCOR previously proposed – the “green space” between Janney and the residential building. But such realism would interfere with the “no net loss of green space” claim and so it’s been excised.

LCOR’s claim that the pre-existence of this curb cut shields the project from DDOT’s oversight is specious. This project will require a PUD and the Zoning Commission will not allow the requisite upzoning without working out a different traffic plan.

FOIA RESULTS

We are in the midst of receiving and reviewing documents from DCPS that are belatedly being produced in response to a July 18th FOIA request. What we’ve learned thus far is that on September 8th, two days before the release of the MFP, Janney’s addition was moved to the end of the modernization queue and scheduled for 2014, a year after its classrooms were to be renovated.

Prior to September 8th, Anthony DeGuzman (DCPS/OOC) and Eric Lerum (DME) had recommended a 2010 date for Janney’s addition, with classroom renovations to follow in 2012 or 2013. These dates are consistent with the March 31st consultant’s draft of the MFP, and the proposed sequencing was a crucial element of the swing in place strategy. The addition would need to be available before the classrooms in the old building could be vacated for renovation.

On September 9th, once DeGuzman saw what happened to Janney, he pointed out that the school’s new place at the end of the queue violated the fundamental principles (e.g. rightsizing) articulated in this MFP: “Schools with lesser space needs have leapfrogged them. This contradicts the guiding principles.” He was told that the change was made “per DME.” We suspect that this means Reinoso personally, given that Lerum, Reinoso’s chief of staff, had been arguing for 2010 just a few days previously.

To put it bluntly, there is clear evidence that the decision to move Janney to the end of the queue was based on politics rather than principle and that the move was designed to accommodate the PPP. Michelle Rhee indicated on September 3rd that “Allen Lew is modifying the plan assuming a PPP for Janney.” There is no indication that prior plans made such an assumption.

The documents also show that DCPS (including Rhee’s office, Lew’s office, and Reinoso’s office) were unfamiliar with LCOR’s proposal when Mayor Fenty made his July 10th developer selection announcement. Yet DCPS reassured the Janney SIT that everything was under control and the school’s needs were being protected even as it scrambled internally to figure out who knew what, if anything, about the proposal.

We have not yet found any documents explaining when or why the decision was made to sever Janney’s modernization from the rest of the PPP. In late July, DMPED contemplated an arrangement in which LCOR would be a “fee developer” for the school.

And, once again, we see no evidence of any planning regarding facilities needs, land use, campus design, logistics, or swing space related to this project.

Once all of the documents have been delivered and analyzed, we will post the most significant ones and an explanatory timeline on the ANC website and on the listservs.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. AUDITOR – The Special Committee plans to renew its request to the DC Auditor to investigate DMPED’s decisionmaking regarding the disposition of public lands. Last Spring, in response to our submission, the Auditor acknowledged the importance of the issue, but said she lacked the resources to investigate because of her office’s heavy workload during the Council’s annual agency Oversight Hearings. We believe that new events and new evidence underline the increasingly urgent need for a comprehensive evaluation of deal-making involving public land. No Commission action is required on this item; any citizen has the right to request an audit.

2. ANC RESOLUTION ADDRESSED TO THE COUNCIL – The Special Committee suggests that the Commissioners adopt a resolution urging the Council to reassert its status as a co-equal branch of government and a steward of public lands by supporting CM Cheh and Brown’s call to abandon public-private partnership negotiations and to enable DCPL to commence rebuilding the Tenley-Friendship Branch and by moving legislation to reform Title X out of committee.

ANC 3E's Resolution Regarding the Tenley-Friendship Library and the Janney Elementary School Proposed Public-Private Development Project

2008-11-15T08:51:00.004-05:00

WHEREAS, Council Members Kwame Brown and Mary Cheh have written a letter to the Mayor asking for the library rebuild to move forward immediately and the private development proposal for the site be dropped, yet have not received a response by their due date of November 7, 2008, and

WHEREAS, the Council Members’ lack of impact on the project signals that the Council’s status as a co-equal branch of the government is threatened, and

WHEREAS, the failure of the Mayor to end this extremely unpopular project has resulted in real harm to the community by causing a prolonged delay of the library rebuild,

THEREFORE, be it resolved that ANC 3E urges the Mayor to end negotiations for a public-private development project at this site and to authorize DCPL to move forward with its plans to rebuild the Tenley-Friendship, and

THEREFORE, be it resolved that ANC 3E urges the Council to re-establish its role as an effective steward of public lands by instructing the Mayor to stop wasting time and money on this project that is opposed by both the community and the Council Members who initially supported it, and

THEREFORE, be it resolved that ANC 3E further urges the Council to complete the work it has begun to reform Title X by moving a bill out of committee and passing legislation this term to ensure that surplussing decisions must be made by the Council before the Mayor and his agents are authorized to offer public land for sale or long-term lease.

Approved this day of November 13, 2008 by a vote of 3-1 with a proper quorum present of Commissioners.

Signed,
Amy McVey, Chairperson of the ANC 3E

What’s Up with the Tenleytown Public/Private Project?

2008-11-15T00:21:00.000-05:00

originally published in the November 2nd edition of dcwatch's The Mail

In Thursday’s Examiner, Ward 3 Councilmember Cheh claims “It’s finished.” But in Friday’s Washington Business Journal, Deputy Mayor Neil Albert and LCOR both say the project is “moving forward.” Loose Lips declares that it’s now “officially a pissing match.” For those who haven’t been following the story, Mayor Fenty pulled the plug on DCPL’s long-delayed reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship branch library last July. At that point, DCPL had already spent a year (and about $1 million dollars) for demolition, design, and approvals and was on track (and within budget) to break ground in three months and reopen the library by early 2010.

So why did Fenty, essentially, yank the shovel out of Ginnie Cooper’s hands as she was finally ready to rebuild our library? To enter into exclusive negotiations with LCOR that would enable private residential development on the parcel of public land that houses both the branch library and Janney Elementary School.

Ostensibly/originally, the rationale for this project was that it would speed Janney’s modernization. It was always clear that there was nothing in the deal for the library, whose airy design will be riddled with columns to support the apartments above and whose reopening will most likely be delayed until 2013 (it was closed in 2004). Janney was supposed to get new and better facilities sooner, yet none of the proposals that emerged from the competitive bidding process were able to effect that outcome. At this point, it looks as if all that the LCOR proposal will do for Janney is take away some of its campus and delay its modernization. As a result, the Janney SIT (which includes the school’s principal) has called for an end to PPP discussions. And Councilmembers Cheh and Brown (Chair of the Council’s Committee on Economic Development) have written a letter asking the mayor to let the library reconstruction move forward independently of any public-private deal.

So what’s it going to be? Will Mayor Fenty sacrifice our public facilities’ needs to line developers’ pockets? Councilmember Cheh’s odds of reelection hinge on his decision. After all, if she can’t protect a fully-funded branch library project and an award-winning but severely overcrowded elementary school from Neil Albert’s depredations, what good is she to Ward 3 residents? Cheh may have proven prescient last spring when, after receiving an award from the Humane Society, she said “if cats and dogs could vote, I’d be in great shape.” Pets don’t vote, but taxpayers, library patrons, and the parents of schoolchildren do. And it’s not just Cheh’s future that’s at stake. If the rest of the council fails to back up Cheh and Brown in this fight, all of the councilmembers are likely to see their power reduced to that of glorified ANC commissioners (albeit with six-figure salaries!).

Already the pattern is establishing itself. Fenty listens to the council when its members tell him what he wants to hear. So Cheh and Brown’s first letter on this project, which endorsed putting this piece of public land on the auction block, was embraced. Their second letter, pointing out that none of the submissions received in response to the RFP was acceptable, was ignored. Fenty chose one of those proposals anyway. When they reiterated that LCOR’s proposal was unacceptable, Albert ignored them once again. And when they asked the mayor to pull the plug on the deal, Albert went to the media to trumpet his refusal.

Long story short, unless there’s a real backlash from the council, the moral of this story is that the council can and will be ignored with impunity. Thus far, the only prerogative I’ve seen this council stand up for is their baseball tickets. It’s time — way past time — for councilmembers to reclaim their role as stewards of public land.

CMs Cheh and Brown ask Mayor to abandon PPP

2008-11-15T00:00:00.002-05:00

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1350 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
MARY M. CHEH
Councilmember, Ward 3
Council Committee on Public Sercies and Consumer Affairs
Office: 202-7244-8062
Fax: 202-724-8413
mcheh@dccouncil.us

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty
Government of the District of Columbia
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

October 29, 2008

Dear Mayor Fenty:

Based upon all of the information presented to us and the views of the community, involved groups,, the developers, and District and ANC officials, we write to ask that you permit the Tenley Library to be build now and separate it from any possible mixed use, or public/private, development on the site.

At the same time, however, we ask that the Library's design be amended to include the structural supports necessary to permit development on top of the Library at a future date. That development could be residential, mixed-use, or even an increase in the size of the library. Our preliminary assessment is that such a modification would not be difficult and, although it will involve additional cost, that cost should be modest and manageable. In any event, the cost should be viewed as an investment in the future.

This approach will allow the library to move forward now, on its own timetable, with its design intact, and with monies already allocated.

As for the current LCOR proposal, we believe that it is fatally flawed; we cannot and will not support it. There are many reasons why we have reached this unsatisfactory place, but our lack of support relates to the LCOR proposal alone.

We still believe, as we have throughout, that the public interest lies in the comprehensive development of this site. There is an urgent need to have vibrant, mixed-use development along our main corridors and the Tenley site, which is located across the street from the subway, ought to be a key part of such development. We need energy and life along our corridors, and we need to make transit oriented development a priority.

Please let us know by next Friday, November 7, 2008, of your decision on allowing the library to go forward now, as modified with appropriate structural supports for future development. Thank you.

Best regards,

Mary M. Cheh
Councilmember, Ward 3

Kwame Brown
Councilmember, At-Large

cc: Neil Albert, Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
Ginnie Cooper, Chief Libraries for the District of Columbia Public Library
LCOR
ANC 3E Commissioners
Kirk Rankin, Janney Elementary School SIT Chair
Dr. Karen Crews, Janney Elemenary School Principal
John Hill, DC Board of Library Trustees President

A signed copy of their October 29th letter is available at http://www.marycheh.com/Press%20Releases/Tenley-Janney.pdf

Community Groups Urge Cheh/Mayor to Pull the Plug on the PPDP and Stop Delaying the Reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship Library

2008-10-03T13:42:00.007-04:00

ANC 3E Chair Amy McVey sent the following letter to CM Cheh, Mayor Fenty, and DM Albert yesterday:

ADVISORY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION 3E
TENLEYTOWN AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PARK FRIENDSHIP HEIGHTS
c/o Lisner Home 5425 Western Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20015

October 2, 2008

We, the undersigned, heartily endorse the following statements:

Since the Janney SIT/LSRT has written to the Mayor rescinding all support for a development project, there is now a consensus among community stakeholders, for the Janney Elementary School and the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library that the public/private development project should be abandoned and that the reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library should proceed immediately. Furthermore, due to the severe overcrowding of the school and an anticipated population expansion to 550 students, Janney Elementary School's modernization/expansion should be moved as far forward as possible in the new Master Facilities Plan.

We strongly urge all decision makers in the District of Columbia government to cease negotiations with all developers intending to build private residences on the library and/or school land. The District of Columbia Public Library system should be directed to go ahead immediately with plans to rebuild the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library, and we urge Allen Lew of the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization to move Janney Elementary School in the modernization queue to allow for its expansion/modernization to begin as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted,

Amy McVey, ANC3E01
Carolyn Sherman, ANC 3E03
Lucy Eldridge, ANC3E04
Anne Sullivan, ANC3E05
Friends of the Tenley-Friendship Library Executive Board
Board of Directors, Tenleytown Neighbors Association
Board of Directors, Friendship Neighborhood Association
Board of Directors, Tenleytown Historical Society
Board of Directors, CSTO
Marvin Tievsky, Friendship-Tenleytown Citizen’s Association
Dorothy Maloney, The Heights Foundation Inc.
Tenley Campus Neighbors

An Announcement from Janney Elementary School Improvement Team (SIT)

2008-09-19T17:39:00.004-04:00

Last night, the Janney SIT announced its categorical opposition to a public-private redevelopment project involving the school's land in the following email sent to Janney parents:

An Update on the PPP and DCPS' Modernization and Expansion Plans for Janney

September 17, 2008

To the Janney Community -

The School Improvement Team (SIT) would like to update you on several important developments regarding the City's public-private partnership (PPP) plans and the District of Columbia Public Schools' (DCPS) modernization and expansion plans for Janney.

For the last year, and as recently as July of this year, the Janney SIT has offered conditional support for the concept of a PPP with the goal of securing a modernized and expanded Janney facility within a short time horizon. After careful consideration of the needs of the school and the sentiments of the Janney community, the SIT is withdrawing previously stated conditional support for this initiative. We are optimistic that the necessary modernization and urgently needed expansion of Janney can be completed through an effective Master Facilities Plan process without ceding land to a private developer. The SIT will advocate for timely modernization and expansion through this process.

The SIT appreciates the feedback we have received from the community so far and we welcome your questions and input going forward. A detailed Q&A regarding the current situation is located at the end of this letter, along with information on how to contact your SIT representatives. We are communicating with the City early next week, so if you have comments, please let us know as soon as possible.

The following factors have led us to this conclusion:

-- On September 10, 2008, DCPS issued an official draft of the Master Facilities Plan (MFP). According to the MFP, Janney is slated to begin modernization in 2013 and construction of an addition in 2014. Based on our current understanding, the modernization and addition are scheduled to occur at this time, regardless of whether the PPP moves forward. To view the official draft of the Master Facilities Plan, please go to http://opefm.dc.gov/pdf/DC_Master_Plan_2008.pdf.

-- None of the plans submitted by the City's selected lead private developer (LCOR), nor by any other developer, have thus far met the set of conditions stated by the SIT. We are skeptical that there will ever be an acceptable proposal given that the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) has failed to engage in meaningful discussion with Janney. The City's PPP process has been opaque. We doubt both the City's intent and their ability to satisfy our basic conditions including green space preservation and an earlier time schedule for modernization and expansion. To read a history of the issue and previous letters issued by the SIT, please go to http://www.janneyschool.org/PTASITPPP/Library%20development/librarydevelopment.htm.

In light of repeated unacceptable plans from LCOR and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, the failure of the City to engage Janney in meaningful dialogue, and confidence that Janney's modernization and expansion plans can be completed in a timely manner by DCPS without a loss of Janney land, the SIT believes that the Janney community should no longer offer to cede part of its campus to advance a PPP.

We encourage you to review the Q&A that follows. If you'd like to contact us, we'd be happy to talk with you:

a. "Office Hours" -SIT members will be available in front of the school on Friday, September 19 at these times: 8:20 - 9:00am; 3:00 - 3:30pm

b. Comment Card - Stop by the SIT table at the times listed above, grab a comment card, fill it out, and drop it in the comments box that will be located at the SIT table. Comment cards will also be available in the Janney office.

c. Email and Phone - Shoot us an email or give us a call.

Please see the attached document for a Q&A regarding the current situation.

Best regards,

Janney SIT

Just when you thought the deal couldn't get worse...

2008-09-13T23:43:00.009-04:00

It's been a big "news" week for this project and, as usual, most of the information came our way as the result of FOIA requests and conversations with the developer rather than from direct communication between DC officials and the community. The short version is (a) Janney has been kicked back to the end of the school modernization queue, (b) LCOR won't be building or renovating the school, and (c) we can thank Mary Cheh and Allison Feeney for both of these developments.

As the following timeline indicates, the continued pursuit of a public-private “partnership” for the Janney/Tenley-Friendship library site is delaying not only the construction of the library, but the school’s modernization project as well.

October 31 – The Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) issues a “Solicitation of Offers” for a public-private development project that would involve rebuilding the Tenley-Friendship Library and modernizing/expanding Janney Elementary, while adding a residential building to the site. Private developers are offered public funds to build both the library and the school.

February 28 – All three developers who submitted proposals are given the opportunity to present them to the public. LCOR’s presentation includes a detailed site plan for Janney’s expansion and modernization.

March 31 – Janney is placed at #8 in queue in a draft Master Facilities Plan (MFP) submitted to DCPS officials by their consultants, FHAI. Both the budget and the timeline for Janney in this plan are totally inconsistent with the budget and timeline for the school that was laid out in DMPED’s Solicitation of Offers, suggesting that, thus far, there has been no coordination between DCPS and DMPED regarding the Janney modernization project.

April 28 – DMPED officials Neil Albert and Eric Scott insist that Janney is number 100-something in the MFP queue; at this point, they are unaware of DCPS’s March 31st draft MFP.

July 10 – The Mayor announces that he has decided to pursue the public–private option and has chosen to negotiate exclusively with LCOR. LCOR’s press release that day says “LCOR will develop the school and library while developing the nearby apartments.”

July 12 – CM Cheh urges Neil Albert to “co-ordinate with those responsible” to act on Allison Feeney’s suggestions that the way to engender community support for the PPP is to shut down the possibility that Janney could be near the front of the modernization queue without a PPP and to put Allen Lew’s shop in total control of Janney’s modernization project.

Sept 10 – DCPS makes its new MFP public and Janney has now been moved back to the end of the modernization queue. LCOR VP Tim Smith tells ANC special committee members Anne Sullivan and Sue Hemberger that his company will not be designing or building any of Janney’s facilities; that will be a DCPS project under Lew’s direction. The only thing DCPS is deciding with respect to the LCOR deal is how many parking spots it wants to buy in the underground garage.

The assertion that Janney was moved up in the queue only because of the PPP flies in the face of all of the evidence. If it were true, we’d expect Janney to move forward rather than backward after the Mayor’s July 10th announcement, but the opposite happened. Janney’s scheduled completion date went from 2012 (March/pre-PPP draft) to 2014 (September/post-PPP draft).

A paradigm shift in DCPS’s approach to school modernizations is what lead to Janney's move to the front of the queue in March. Right-sizing is the new priority and that meant relieving overcrowding (and increasing capacity at successful schools) as well as shutting down low-performing schools to eliminate excess capacity in the system. On this model, Janney belongs near the front whereas on the older model, where the priority was fixing the facilities in the worst condition first, Janney had been near the end.

And the fact that the current anticipated completion date (2014) is earlier than the anticipated completion date under the older pre-takeover Master Facilities Plan (2015) has absolutely nothing to do with the PPP. It’s an artifact of the new regime’s decision to modernize at a much faster pace, and move through the whole queue in the next 5 years. Under the new draft MFP, no school modernizations are scheduled for completion after 2014. And, incidentally, the start dates in both the pre-takeover MFP and the current version are the same -- 2013. The claim that Janney’s modernization schedule has been hastened as a result of this PPP is pure fabrication and, as Allison’s email suggests, it’s a fabrication whose circulation is urged by those whose primary motive at this point is to promote a PPP rather than to get better facilities for the school sooner.

In addition to Cheh's advice to Neil Albert, there's another reason why the prospect of a public-private partnership would argue for postponing Janney's modernization. Odds are, Allen Lew has reached the point where he now assumes that the PPP is a done deal and he is planning accordingly. It woudl be a real nightmare to stick with the consultants' proposed 2011/12 Janney modernization if LCOR were working on the adjacent site simultaneously. So in his position, the rational thing for Lew to do would be wait to start the Janney project until after LCOR is basically done and gone. The other option would be to modernize Janney before LCOR is even ready to break ground but, in the absence of any site planning/campus design efforts or even a binding decision about how much land Janney will lose to the deal, that's just not feasible.

Currently, no one is engaged in site-planning for Janney. LCOR will plan its apartment/library building (in conjunction with DCPL) and acquire Janney land to build that structure. Janney’s modernization/expansion will be planned only after its campus shrinks.

This is precisely the outcome that the ANC special committee has been arguing against for over a year now. It should not be the case, when public land is at issue, that private developers have their needs met first, while the school is forced to make do with the land left over. It’s a perversion of priorities and an evasion of the law. The right approach is first to figure out how to best meet our facilities needs, reserve the land that’s required to do so, and, then, if there’s land left over, consider whether, how much, and what kind of private development makes sense for the site.

Janney will end up with less -- not more -- as a result of this deal and it’s not even a “we’ll take less to get it sooner” scenario any more. Maybe DCPS gets some revenue (but not much – which is why DC government forbade the developers from information about the financial structure of their proposal during public presentations) from this deal, but it’s not revenue that is needed for school modernizations which already have an ample and dedicated funding source. And, of course, it’s always the case that DCPS could raise money by selling off schools or the land under them. But DCPS’s function is to provide schools not make real estate deals. We’re not getting something for nothing or something extra here. We’re liquidating irreplaceable assets in an area -- and on a campus -- slated for growth. It’s a short-sighted decision that will be detrimental to both the school and the neighborhood.

By any means necessary?

2008-09-13T23:10:00.008-04:00

The following email, obtained through a FOIA request, shows Councilmember Mary Cheh passing on Janney SIT Member Allison Feeney's recommendations as to how to engender support for the PPP. Cheh endorses Feeney's suggestions and urges Neil Albert to implement them. Interestingly, a crucial compoenet of this strategy is to preclude the option that the community wants most -- speedier modernization of Janney without a private development on its campus.

From: Cheh, Mary (COUNCIL) [MCheh@DCCOUNCIL.US]
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 11:37 AM
To: Albert, Neil (EOM)
Subject: Fw: Support for the Tenley PPP

These are all very good suggestions which I hope you will co-ordinate with those responsible and pursue. And, in general, there is a need for as much communication as possible to counter the misinformation being spread out there. Thanks Mary.

Mary M. Cheh
Councilmember for Ward 3
Council of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 108
Washington, DC 20004
Tel (202) 724-8062
mcheh@dccouncil.us
www.marycheh.com
-Sent using BlackBerry

-----Original Message ----
From: allisonfeeney@starpower.net
To: Cheh, Mary (COUNCIL)
Sent: Sat Jul 12 1 l:07:06 2008
Subject: Support for the Tenley PPP

Council Member -Council Office Mary Cheh
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-3003

Dear Council Member -Council Office Cheh,

Thank you for moving ahead with the Tenley Library private
public partnership. This decision for a mixed use project
demonstrates the forward thinking that we celebrate for our
neighborhood.

I believe that there are a couple of statements that the city
could issue that might help the community come together in
support of the project:

I was told by Eric Scott that Allen Lew's shop will be
completely responsible for Janney's modernization, that LCOR
will not be responsible for determining the design and program.
If this is true, and this fact was made public, I'm sure that
would ease the concem of many in the community.

To quell the concern that economic factors are driving this
process, it would be beneficial for the Mayor to announce that
the Deputy Mayor for Education will be as involved in the
process as the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic
bevelopment. Reinoso is well trusted in Ward 3 and that would
help assure the community that the school's needs will be well
represented in the process.

ANC3E is selectively leaking out a 3/31/08 draft of the MFP that
shows Janney as #8 for modemization. They interpret this
document to mean that Janney was being moved up anyway or has
already been moved up and will necessarily stay moved up. You
certainly must realize that if the community could kill the PPP
and have Janney remain in the #8 spot, most in the community
would choose that option! I believe that this is another case
where the ODMPED or Mayor has to come out and state (if true)
that Janney will only move up if the PPP happens. Now that this
document has been circulated, it is no longer good enough to say
it the other way round.

I thank you for moving forward on this Partnership, and I certainly
hope to hear increased and improved communication from the DC
Government as the project evolves.

Sincerely,

Allison Bamard Feeney
4519 Chesapeake Street NW
Washington. DC 20016

Two flyers -- click to enlarge

2008-09-02T11:11:00.001-04:00

FOIA Results

2008-08-28T23:29:00.007-04:00

Back in mid-July, ANC Commissioner (and Special Committee Chair) Anne Sullivan submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to District of Columbia Public Schools, the Office of Public Education Facilities Management, and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education, asking each agency to produce any communications regarding, or documents underlying, the decision to allow private development on Janney's campus and the decision to select LCOR as the developer, as well as any materials involving site planning for Janney and/or analysis of whether (and under what circumstances) a "swing in place" strategy (e.g. keeping the students on campus during construction) would remain viable if a joint public-private development project (PPDP) were to be pursued rather than a stand-alone modernization of the school.

Each agency answered that it had no responsive documents. If true, this means that Rhee, Lew, and Reinoso failed to engage in any analysis of whether a PPDP represents the best strategy for modernizing Janney. Nor did they ask anyone in their offices to engage in such an analysis. In other words, the decision to partner with LCOR was not based on any educational facilities planning effort or expertise. Moreover, it would mean that this decision was not discussed within or among these agencies; nor was there a dialogue between any of these agencies and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development or the Mayor himself regarding this decision.

So are they telling the truth? On the one hand, it's difficult to believe that there's not a single document anywhere in DCPS or OPEFM discussing these decisions. On the other hand, it makes no sense (and it's a violation of the law) to refuse to produce the administrative record that explains and justifies these decisions. It's tantamount to acknowledging that the decisionmaking process was arbitrary and capricious. That isn't so hard to believe. In fact, it's entirely consistent with our experience and perception of how this project has been handled over the course of the past 15 months.

DCPS's Response:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS
OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
825 North Capitol Street, NE, 9TH Floor
Washington, D.C., 20002-1994
(202) 442-5000 – fax: (202) 442-5097/8

August 28, 2008

Anne Sullivan
Commissioner (SMD 3E 05)
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3E
4431 Springdale Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016

RE: Response to July 18, 2008 Freedom of Information Act Request # 0708-87

Dear Ms. Sullivan:

On July 18, 2008, you forwarded a Freedom of Information Act request to the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) requesting the following:

1. The complete administrative record underlying the decision to allow non-educationally related private development on the campus of Bernard T. Janney Elementary School.

2. The complete administrative record underlying the decision that LCOR’s proposal represented the best approach to the meeting Janney Elementary School’s facilities needs.

3. All documents relevant to the claim that Janney students will be able to remain on campus (or “swing in place”) if a public-private joint redevelopment project is pursued at this site.

4. All materials and documents reflective of the site-planning that DCPS has done for Janney’s modernization and expansion.

5. All documents reflecting discussions within DCPS or between DCPS and others (individuals, contractors, other governmental agencies or officials) regarding Janney’s position in the modernization queue or status in the Master Facilities Plan.

6. All documents including discussions of how / whether the issue of overcrowding should be addressed in the Master Facilities Plan and / or affect the prioritization of the modernization queue.

7. All documents referring or relating to the public / private partnership for or development of the Site from April 1, 2008 until the date on which this FOIA request has been fully satisfied.

8. All documents referring or relating to communications with anyone (including but not limited to other governmental entities and their representatives, developers, businesses, non-profit organizations, any DC Council Member or member of his/her staff) concerning the possible development of the Site from April 1, 2008 until the date on which the FOIA request has been fully satisfied.

9. All documents regarding modernization, expansion, or repairs of Janney Elementary School more generally from April 1, 2008 until the date on which this FOIA request has been fully satisfied.

Please be advised that DCPS does not have in its possession documents responsive to your requests. As previously advised, you will have to make a separate FOIA request to the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education for these documents. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact the Office of the General Counsel at (202) 442-5000. Otherwise, please note that if you are dissatisfied with the decisions contained in this letter, you may appeal the decisions in writing by sending a letter to: FOIA Appeal, 1350 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 221, Washington, D.C. 20004. Thank you.

Sincerely,

/s/

Nicole L. Streeter
Deputy General Counsel
District of Columbia Public Schools

*****
OPEFM's Response:

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
OFFICE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES MODERNIZATION

Allen Y. Lew 2400 East Capitol Street, SE
Executive Director Washington, D.C. 20003
Phone (202)698-7762

August 28, 2008

Anne Sullivan
Commissioner (SMD 3E 05)
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3 E
4431 Springdale Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20016

Subject: Janney Elementary School

Reference: FOIA Request Response

Dear Ms. Sullivan:

ln response to your letter received by the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization ("OPEFM") on July X 8. 2008 pursuant to which you requested disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of information related to plans for Janney Elementary please find responses to your specific requests below.

1. The complete administrative record underlying the decision to allow non-educationally related private development on the campus of Bernard T. Janney Elementary School. OPEFM has no responsive records.

2. The complete administrative record underlying the decision that LCOR's proposal represented the best approach to meeting Janney Elementary School's facilities needs. OPEFM has no responsive records.

3. All documents relevant to the claim that Janney students will be able to remain on campus (or "swing in place") if a public-private joint redevelopment project is pursued at this site. OPEFM has no responsive records.

4. All materials and documents reflective of the site-planning that OPEFM has done for Janney's modernization and expansion. As part of its Master Facilities Pan process, OPEFM has produced numerous iterations of draft plans for modernization of DCPS facilities. These draft plans are exempt from disclosure pursuant to DC ST Section 2-534(a)(4).

5. All documents reflecting discussions within OPEFM or between OPEFM and others (individuals, contractors, other governmental agencies or officials) regarding Janney's position in the modernization queue or status in the Master Facilities Plan. As part of its Master Facilities Plan process, OPEFM has produced numerous iterations of draft modernization schedules for DCPS facilities. These draft plans are exempt from disclosure pursuant to DC ST Section 2-534(a)(4).

6. All documents including discussions of how/whether the issue of overcrowding should be addressed in the Master Facilities Plan and/or affect the prioritization of the modernization queue. OPEFM has no responsive records.

7. All documents referring or relating to the public/private parhrership for or development of the Site from June 1, 2007 until the date on which this FOIA request has been fully satisfied. OPEFM has no responsive records.

8. All documents referring or relating to communications with anyone (including but not limited to other government entities and their representatives, developers. businesses, non-profit organizations, any DC Council Member or member of his/her staff) concerning the possible development of the Site from June l, 2007 until the date on which the FOIA request has been fully satisfied. OPEFM has no responsive records.

9. All documents regarding modernization, expansion, or repairs of Janney Elementary School more generally from June 1, 2007 until the date on which this FOIA request has been fully satisfied. Janney received repair work under the 2007 Summer Blitz program. An overview of the scope of work excerpted from the Summer 2007 Blitz tracking report is attached. Should you require a more specifie scope of work please let me know and we will provide one.

Please be advised that certain responsive materials, including the evaluation panel score sheets, are exempt and have not been disclosed.

Please also be advised that you may petition the Mayor pursuant to DC ST Section 2-534(a)(4). to review the decision to withhold these documents pursuant to the exemptions at DC ST Section 2-534(a)(4).

If you have any additional question, please call me (202) 345-7016 or contact me by email at scott.burrell@dc.gov.

Sincerely,

Scott A. Burrell
General Counsel

It's Council Time! (Well, almost.)

2008-08-18T13:28:00.011-04:00

The following posts from The Mail lay out my take on what has happened/been revealed since the Mayor's July 10th announcement.

Long story short, we've moved from a stage in which the fate of this project was in the Mayor's hands to one in which it's now the Council's decision. The Cheh/Brown letters (released to the public only after being reported on in the media) suggest that the CMs are starting to step up to the plate, but aren't exactly power hitters yet. Then again, what we're seeing now is just pre-season warm-ups. The Council doesn't return from its summer recess until mid-September.

UPDATE: Had a very reassuring meeting with Kwame Brown this morning (Wednesday). He clearly intends to take the Council's oversight role seriously. Expect at least two public hearings on this project next Spring from his committee (Economic Development) and, of course, Government Operations will need to hold a hearing on the surplussing issue as well. If Carol Schwartz (its Chair) survives the primary, I think she, too, will want to see this project thoroughly vetted.

Tales from Tenley (August 10th)

One month after the mayor pulled the plug on DC Public Libraries’ imminent reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship library and handed that project and the adjacent Janney Elementary School modernization over to Deputy Mayor Neil Albert, the story has become even more fantastic. It turns out that the deal the Mayor was touting — a project involving 120-130 units of housing and “no loss of green space,” according to his July 10 press release — was a complete fiction. The development “partner” whom Fenty named had not agreed to these terms or anything like them. LCOR’s same-day press release referred to an 174-unit project, and Tim Smith, an LCOR Vice President, subsequently confirmed that the company had made no “best and final offer.” In fact, their only offer was the one that the community had seen last February. And that proposal consumed all of Janney’s playing field as well as a portion of the teachers’ parking lot.

But apparently it wasn’t just the community that Fenty and Albert were misleading when they suggested that subsequent negotiations had produced a new and much better plan. Ward 3 Council Member Mary Cheh, standing by the mayor’s side but looking uncharacteristically ill-at-ease, had written to Albert back in April, indicating that she found LCOR’s plan to be unacceptable.

Like LCOR, she had been called the night before and asked to attend the press conference the next morning. There was no opportunity for her to see the new (nonexistent) plan before she arrived. Once she learned that the new plan was essentially the same as the old plan, Cheh and Kwame Brown (who, as Chairman of the Council’s Committee on Economic Development, serves an important gate-keeping function on projects like this — if, that is, such projects actually are taken to the council before they are faits accompli) sent another letter to Neil Albert on July 24. According to three different media accounts this past week, that letter laid out a number of “essential conditions” that would have to be met before these Councilmembers could offer their support for the LCOR deal.

None of these conditions have been met (and, frankly, some probably cannot be met), so Cheh and Brown apparently are, for now at least, opposed to the deal. This is an important turn of events, since it was another letter from Cheh and Brown, sent to the mayor in June of last year, whose support for a public-private venture helped put the school and library land on the auction block in the first place.

So now we know that Fenty and Albert subverted the council, misrepresented the project to the community and to the Ward Councilmember, and announced a deal their putative partner had never agreed to. On top of that, the deal that LCOR has offered is a really bad one for the community. It will provide us with fewer/worse public facilities, delivered later, and at greater public expense. I’m delighted to see Cheh “join the opposition,” as the Post put it. Of course, talk’s cheap, and it’s a little unnerving to hear Cheh, once again, talking about “crossing her fingers” and hoping for the best. It’s time for the Council to develop and enforce standards (both procedural and substantive) for ensuring that public land deals serve the public interest rather than just enhance the power of the executive by providing a vast source of patronage.

Tenleytown Follies (August 17th)

In this week’s episode, Mary Cheh makes her letters to Neil Albert public. And standards are lowered, but still not met.

When Councilmembers Cheh and Brown wrote to the deputy mayor in early April, after seeing all three submissions received in response to the Tenleytown Request for Proposals, they stated “we cannot support any of the three proposals in their current form.” By late July, they are saying, “one possible way to move this project forward is to revert back to some of the features of the other developers’ plans.” In other words (judging from the suggestions that follow), if only LCOR would adopt Roadside’s (hitherto unacceptable) plan, we could support this project.

Meanwhile the affordable housing requirement for the project has fallen from 30 percent to 8 percent (less than would be required under mandatory inclusionary zoning). And Cheh and Brown find themselves begging for assurances (from an agency that has just betrayed their trust) that we’ll break even or not lose too much by accepting this deal — “no loss of “green space for Janney,” “no undue delay in building the library,” “LEED Silver” (when the DC Public Library’s architects think they have achieved Gold.)

While it’s a step in the right direction to see Councilmembers beginning to set standards for public land deals, Cheh and Brown’s “essential ingredients” don’t include the most basic features that should be necessary to justify devoting part of this heavily used campus to private development. There’s no requirement that Janney’s facilities needs be met before land is devoted to non-educational uses, that the school be modernized faster than it would without a public-private partnership (a requirement present in their April letter), or that the deal produce a better library than we’d otherwise have.

Is anyone at the table actually looking out for the community’s interests? When we point out that our facilities needs are being sacrificed to build apartments that could be built on private land in the immediate vicinity, we’re told not to worry because the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development and LCOR have “just begun negotiations.”

But there’s a difference between "having made no progress over the past seven months" and “just beginning.” LCOR submitted their proposal the first week in January and they haven’t budged since, despite being asked (at least twice) by DMPED to make a better offer. Why should they? They were selected despite the fact that a united community and the only two Councilmembers to weigh in all considered their proposal unacceptable. As long as these Councilmembers keep lowering their expectations, it’s just a waiting game.

And experience tells them it could be worth the wait. Last time LCOR negotiated with DC government, they emerged with (and quickly sold!) a property tax break lasting more than twenty years for the apartment tower they built. And Oyster’s students lost more than half of their already comparatively small campus.

This whole episode is a case study in why we need to reform (or at least enforce) our process for disposing of public property. The threshold question here should have been “is there land at this site that is no longer needed for public use?” But DMPED chose to skip that step (also known as the surplusing decision) and the council chose not to object. As a result, this project has been driven by ideology and wishful thinking rather than an analysis of public facilities needs and the economic and physical constraints of this particular site.

When every submission the RFP yielded was unacceptable because it didn’t provide the “hoped for” benefits, that should have functioned as a reality check for the Mayor and the Councilmembers who urged this project forward in the first place. It certainly did for the community — once people saw the actual proposals, a consensus quickly emerged that a public-private partnership was not the right approach to this site. The mayor created that consensus (by issuing the RFP) and then ignored it.

The question now is whether Councilmembers Cheh and Brown (and the Council generally) will stop this madness or just content themselves with wringing their hands, crossing their fingers, and passing the buck. Stay tuned.

Two letters from CMs Cheh and Brown to DM Neil Albert

2008-08-13T17:00:00.000-04:00

The first letter was sent after three RFP submissions were made public. The second was sent after Mayor Fenty announced his decision to proceed with a public-private venture and to negotiate the deal exclusively with LCOR. Apparently it was also written after CMs Cheh and Brown discovered that LCOR had not, as Fenty implied, revised its original plan -- a plan they had already told the Mayor that they could not support.

April 9, 2008

Neil O. Albert
Deputy Mayor for Planning & Economic Development
John A. Wilson Building
Suite 317
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Deputy Mayor Albert:

When the idea of a public-private partnership for the Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School site arose, it seemed to offer significant advantages for the community and the city. Since both the library and the school are set for new construction and modernization, such an approach offered the possibility of a comprehensive development of the site. It offered a major opportunity to have quality development along a major corridor and the chance to add mixed-use density right next to a Metro station. If we are serious about reducing our carbon footprint and improving our quality of life, we need people living in the city in places where they can take public transportation and walk to shops and restaurants, rather than adding to the choking traffic and our day and night overrun of suburban commuters. That corner of Wisconsin Avenue is a prime location to realize the benefits of transit-oriented development.

A public-private partnership also carried the prospect of having underground parking for the library and the school, increasing the green space for Janney, adding affordable housing in a neighborhood with few affordable units, adding approximately 100 LEED-certified housing units to the property-tax rolls, producing added revenue for the modernization of Janney, and moving up the date for Janney's modernization.

All of these potential benefits prompted us to encourage the Mayor to solicit bids and ideas from developers. It seemed short-sighted, as some had sugested, to not even explore what was possible.

But now the specific proposals have come forth. And because of the restraints outlined in the revised RFP, the responses to the RFP have yielded plans that, to us, do not adequately meet the benefits hoped for. Therefore, we cannot support any of the three proposals in their current form. While the proposals do provide for the hoped-for transit-oriented development, underground parking, and other significant benefits, they omit some essential items necessary for our support. These include:

-- No net loss (and even a gain) of green space for Janney
-- Added revenue earmarked for Janney
-- An accelerated timetable for Janney modernization
-- A timetable that will not significantly delay a new library

We strongly encourage you to consider, realistically and with firm assurances, whether the original hoped-for benefits can still be achieved. If they truly cannot, then we will not be able to support the public-private venture going forward.

Mary M. Cheh
Councilmember, Ward 3

Kwame R. Brown
Councilmember, At-Large

cc: Adrian Fenty, Mayor

*******

July 24, 2008

Neil O. Albert
Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
John A. Wilson Building
Suite 317
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Deputy Mayor Albert:

Based upon a meeting held on July 21, 2008, with the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, Office of Planning, Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization, D.C. Public Schools, Deputy Mayor for Education, D.C. Public Library and LCOR, we are deeply concerned that the Janney/Tenley public private partnership project will not meet the essential ingredients set out in the letter we sent to you on April 9, 2008. There may be a way out, but we reiterate that the following factors are the requirements for this to be a successful project:

No loss of green space for Janney Elementary School;
A monetary benefit to the District that will be sufficient to justify substantially moving up the Janney Elementary School modernization;
No undue delay in building the library;
A minimum of 8% affordable housing; and
LEED Silver certification.

One possible way to move this project forward is to revert back to some of the features of the other developers’ plans. One plan allowed the Tenley Library to move forward, without a delay, because the development portion of the project cantilevered over the library, and the underground parking would be located under Janney Elementary School.

We really want to support a comprehensive development of the Janney/Tenley Library site. We believe in the substantial community benefit that will arise from transit-oriented development along the major corridors like Wisconsin Avenue. However, we need some assurance that the above outlined requirements will be met. We understand that your office and the selected developer have just begun negotiations on their proposal, and we are hopeful that the District and the developer will come to an agreement that includes the elements that will provide true community benefits to both the affected neighborhood and community at large.

Regards,

Councilmember Mary Cheh

Terri Thompson Mallett, Clerk
Committee on Economic Development
On Behalf of Councilmember Kwame R. Brown

Resolutions Urging that the Public-Private Project be Abandoned and that DCPL Move Forward with the Reconstruction of the Library

2008-08-11T14:03:00.013-04:00

Last Spring, after the three submissions DMPED received in response to the RFP were presented to the public, six different community associations (in addition to the ANC and the Janney SIT) urged the rejection of all three offers. Here are the texts of those statements/resolutions:

FRIENDSHIP-TENLEYTOWN CITIZENS ASSOCIATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20016

Established 1892

APRIL 7, 2008

Dear Deputy Mayor,

Friendship-Tenleytown Citizens Association has conducted a survey of its members concerning the building of the new Tenley Friendship Library. As a result of this survey our members have voted by a vast majority for a free standing library on its own land without any buildings attached in any way.

Sincerely,

Marvin Tievsky

President

3810 Warren Street, N.W.

Wahington,D.C. 20016

********

Coalition to Stop Tenleytown Overdevelopment

Sent: Fri May 23 09:26:43 2008

Subject: Build the Tenley Library Now

On behalf of our members, the Executive Board of the Coalition to Stop Tenleytown Overdevelopment (CSTO) would like to commend DCPL for its announcement that construction of the new Tenley-Friendship branch library will soon begin.

For decades, the Tenley-Friendship branch served as the heart of our urban village, despite its ugly duckling architecture and flooded basement. In the last few years, however, its abandoned building joined the fire station and the Wilson pool as stark reminders of DC government’s failure to deliver basic public services to its residents.

So it is with great delight that we welcome the imminent reconstruction of our branch library under the leadership of DCPL’s new Chief, Ginnie Cooper. The exciting design that the Freelon Group has produced will not only welcome patrons back but will also serve as an icon for our neighborhood and a tangible symbol of DC government’s renewed investment in our long-neglected library system.

We look forward to becoming the envy of other Ward 3 neighborhoods and to helping spur demand for new branch construction throughout the city!

We do not support the library being held up while the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) continues to be debated. Any PPP on the library site risks extensive delays, which are unacceptable to our membership.We urge ANC 3E to adopt a resolution expressing the community’s gratitude to DCPL for working so hard and so intelligently to serve our public facilities needs and to give us a fine library to be complete and available to the community by 2010.

Paul Fekete

Jane Waldmann

Louis Wolf

Andra Tamburro

Carolyn Sherman

Board members, Coalition to Stop Tenleytown Overdevelopment (CSTO)

*****

Friendship Neighborhood Association

The board of directors of the Friendship Neighborhood Association categorically opposes the public-private partnership being pursued by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development for the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library/Janney Elementary School site.

This position reflects the majority opinion of upper Northwest residents. Notably, more than 75 percent of the individuals who submitted public comments on the proposals proffered by the three developers interested in the PPP rejected a mixed-use project on the library/school land.

FNA's board of directors is particularly troubled that ODMPED again has made the library rebuild part of the proposed PPP, citing community sentiment as the justification. This claim flagrantly misrepresents the neighborhood consensus. Just 18 percent of the people providing comments said that a new branch library should be included in any PPP.

We strongly support the D.C. Public Library's goal of rebuilding the Tenley-Friendship Library as a freestanding facility by early 2010. In our view, the building DCPL currently envisions will be able to deliver the multiple services residents expect from a neighborhood library while also making an architecturally significant statement on this part of upper Wisconsin Avenue.

At the same time, the board declares that the library rebuild should not be part of any possible PPP. Including it inevitably will lead to a delayed completion and a compromised design.

Friendship Neighborhood Association Board of Directors

David P. Frankel

Gina Mirigliano

Marilyn Simon

June 3, 2008

Susan MacKnight, FNA Secretary/Treasurer

*****

Friends of the Tenley Library

Dear Mayor Fenty,

The Executive Board of the Friends of Tenley Library is on record opposing further delay in constructing a full-service branch library for our community. Reconsideration of any public-private partnership will cause an unacceptable delay that will further deny the community full library services.

The Friends of Tenley Library (FOTL), was organized in 1973. The current membership is over 300 library users. FOTL is a non-profit organization with IRS 501(c)(3) status. The purpose of the group, as stated in the bylaws, is to "focus public attention on the Tenley-Friendship Library's services, facilities, and needs...to support and cooperate with the library in developing library services and facilities." Our members include young singles, parents, teachers, seniors, neighborhood organizations and businesses. We are part of the Friends of Libraries USA and the DC Federation of Friends. We are neither a pro-development nor an anti-development group. We are library advocates.

Our community, with its prime location near Ward 3's only Middle and High School, Janney Elementary School, St. Ann's Academy and several nursery schools, has been without a full service library since 2004. This is unacceptable. Enough time and money has been squandered on this effort.

We have the opportunity to move forward expeditiously. The DC Public Library produced a quality design that meets the criteria set forth by the Executive Board of the Friends of Tenley Library. Will you be present at the community meeting on June 11 at the interim library to see the final drawings from the award-winning firm?

The Board believes that reconsideration of a public-private partnership will cause an unacceptable delay.

The Board urges you to move forward with the design proposed by the library.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn C. Ray

President

Friends of the Tenley Library

Sent 6/09/08

*****

Tenleytown Historical Society

Dear Mayor Fenty,

The Board of Directors and the membership of the Tenleytown Historical Society, founded in 1988, urgently request that the City drop the idea of a public-private venture between the Tenley-Friendship Library, Janney Elementary School, and a private developer, and allow the design and construction of the new library to proceed without delay. The architectural team chosen by DCPL has submitted an outstanding design and is proceeding on schedule with a project that is fully funded.

Since 2004 our community has been without a library and the Tenleytown Historical Society has been without a meeting place that is available free of charge–this has severely curtailed our activities. We are unwilling to submit to the inevitable delays that will result from involving the library in this public-private venture.

More importantly, the proposed site for the residential building to be constructed by the private developer is directly in the center of an educational complex consisting of the library and three historically significant structures: Janney Elementary School, St. Ann’s Church and Academy, and the Convent of Bon Secours. Of these, the Convent is already on the DC Register of Historic Sites and a nomination for Janney School is pending. While the library will be a twenty-first century building that does not attempt to mimic the diverse and distinctive architecture of the older surrounding buildings, it will have a similar educational function and be compatible in massing and scale. This compatibility plus the Commission of Fine Arts’ enthusiastic approval of the library design are an indication that this unique civic building could one day be worthy of historic designation.

It is the belief of the Tenleytown Historical Society that any further delay of the rebuilding of our library is unacceptable, and that the insertion of a residential structure into this complex of buildings dedicated for a century to educational use would be a terrible mistake.

Board of Directors

Jean Pablo
Jason Hegy
Carolyn Long
Jane Waldmann

Sent 6/09/08

*****

Tenleytown Neighbors Association

Whereas the District of Columbia Public Library (DCPL) has produced a design for the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library that clearly demonstrates both an aspiration to excellence and an understanding of the value of civic architecture,

and

Whereas, we see our neighborhood library as a symbolic anchor for our community and the hub of a vibrant educational enclave,

and

Whereas, Tenleytown has been deprived of its branch library since 2004,

and

Whereas, the Tenleytown Neighbors Association, along with other community groups, had been meeting at the Library monthly at no cost and must now meet elsewhere at great expense and inconvenience,

and

Whereas, after repeated and thorough consideration of a variety of different public-private projects involving the library, we have seen that any such plan will involve substantial delays and will ultimately produce more constrained and less attractive public facilities, and capital funds have already been allocated to build the library that DCPL is proposing,

and

Whereas, DCPL is nearing completion of a final design that will allow a competitively selected contractor to break ground in the Fall of 2008,

Therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the Tenleytown Neighbors Association commends DCPL for its exciting design and its determination to replace the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library by early 2010. We ask that the City listen to the strong consensus of community opinion that this library project,as conceived by DCPL, move forward expeditiously and that the public-private project be discontinued.

Approved by a vote of the membership and submitted 6/11/08

Dueling Press Releases: DMPED vs. LCOR

2008-08-11T10:13:00.005-04:00

both dated July 10, 2008

Note the difference in the number of units as well as what's omitted from LCOR's release -- no promises about minimizing delays to the library or no net loss of green space for Janney. LCOR appears to have cut and pasted language from DMPED's release, but it hasn't repeated promises the Mayor made that LCOR knows can't be kept.

It's also worth mentioning that, in both releases, the city is no longer claiming that 30% of the units will be devoted to "affordable" housing. Now we're being told that there will be an unspecified quantity of much pricier "workforce" housing. And, apparently, the project has been downgraded from LEED Silver to LEED Certified. Even before the terms of the deal are negotiated, expectations are being lowered. At this point, there's essentially nothing left of the affordable housing benefit (but the subsidy!) and LCOR's mixed-use building will be much less "green" than DCPL's design (their architects aimed for Silver and believe they've achieved Gold).

Finally, and not surprisingly, nobody's willing to publicize the fact that what's happening here is that a nine-story apartment building is being constructed on the kids' soccer field. Let's just agree to call it "the land that lies between the library and Janney Elementary," as if it were a separate vacant lot rather than a part of the campus that is in continual use even when school isn't in session.

From DMPED:

Fenty Announces Development Partner for Tenley/Janney Site

(Washington, DC) – Mayor Adrian M. Fenty on Thursday announced the District has selected LCOR as its development partner for the 3.6 acre Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School development site.

“We’ve got a real opportunity to leverage this site to help pay for the cost of improving Janney Elementary, enhance the existing open space and add both market-rate and workforce housing – all atop a Metro station,” Mayor Fenty said. “LCOR is a highly capable developer. They know how to make public-private partnerships work.”

The District selected LCOR after issuing a competitive solicitation last fall. Three development teams responded to the solicitation. The teams were evaluated on vision, financial capacity and past performance.

LCOR has proposed building between 120 and 130 units of housing – primarily above the future Tenley library and a portion of the land that lies between the library and Janney Elementary. LCOR will work closely with the District of Columbia Public Library to ensure a quality integrated structure that will provide a vibrant, mixed-use learning and living environment that will produce an architecturally engaging, LEED certified project.

LCOR will collaborate with DCPL to ensure that any delay to the Library’s construction start will be minimized. LCOR will also work closely with the Janney Elementary School community to ensure that the Janney’s needs are met. This selection presents the opportunity to provide a tremendous financial benefit to Janney Elementary School by using a portion of the proceeds of the deal to support Janney’s modernization. The project will not result in a net loss of green space for Janney.

Keeping with the Administrations commitment to affordable housing, the project will also provide the opportunity to add workforce housing to the Tenley Friendship neighborhood.

In the coming weeks, the District and LCOR will work closely with community stakeholders such as the Advisory Neighborhood Commission and the St. Ann’s community to produce a project that creates a benefit for all involved.

From LCOR:

District of Columbia Selects LCOR as Development Partner for Library Site
LCOR’s Public/Private Development Track Record a Key Factor in District Decision

WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 10, 2008) — Mayor Adrian M. Fenty today announced that the District of Columbia has selected LCOR as its development partner for the Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School site in Northwest Washington.

“We’ve got a real opportunity to leverage this site to help pay for the cost of improving Janney Elementary, enhance the existing open space and add both market-rate and workforce housing — all atop a Metro station,” Mayor Fenty said. “LCOR is a highly capable developer. They know how to make public-private partnerships work.”

The District selected LCOR after issuing a competitive solicitation in the fall of 2007. Three development teams responded to the solicitation. The teams were evaluated on vision, financial capacity and past performance.

LCOR has proposed building 174 units of market-rate and workforce housing, primarily above the future Tenley library and a portion of the land that lies between the library and Janney Elementary School. A retail component across Wisconsin Avenue from the Tenleytown/ American University Metro station also is envisioned as part of the project. LCOR will develop the school and library while developing the nearby apartments.

LCOR will work closely with the District of Columbia Public Library to ensure a quality integrated facility that provides a vibrant, mixed-use learning and living environment that is architecturally engaging and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified.

Specific terms of the agreement between the District and LCOR are still to be determined.

LCOR has a 30-year history in the Washington, D.C. region. Notably, the company designed and built another public school (James F. Oyster Elementary) in Northwest Washington as part of a public/private partnership. That project was completed in 2001.

Intowner article on DCPL (including the Tenley/LCOR deal)

2008-08-10T20:00:00.000-04:00

DC Libraries Showing Improved Facilities and Service; Construction of Branch in Shaw Soon to Start, Mayor Accused of Disrupting Tenley Plan

Published: August 8th, 2008
By Anthony L. Harvey

A gathering storm comprised of Fiscal Year 2009 DC Public Library (DCPL) budgetary shortfalls — especially the loss of funds for 71 budget positions from FY ‘2008 — and the recent dramatic disruption of new branch library construction schedules — with the Tenley/Friendship branch, which was ready with detailed construction bid documents and District building permit applications, now being cancelled and replaced by the Mayor with plans for a mixed-use condominium project awarded to a private commercial developer, and continuing community controversy over programmatic priorities for computer labs and adult literary efforts in the District’s most distressed neighborhoods, all threaten to overshadow the substantial improvements achieved over the past 18 months in DC Public Library services and facilities.

The architectural design for Tenley, complete with plans, drawings and elevations was highly praised by the community, with only a “Smart Growth” organization expressing vocal admiration of the developer’s counter proposal — said to be for the benefit of an improved schedule for the rehabilitation of one of the library’s adjacent neighbors, Janney Elementary School. Public school advocates, together with those of next door St. Anne’s Catholic school, joined in opposition to the condominium tower proposed for this already crowded upper Wisconsin site and in support for DCPL’s Tenley library proposal.

The dire consequences of the budgetary crisis — announced at the DCPL’s July Board of Trustees’ meeting — included the closing of all DCPL library facilities on Fridays throughout the calendar year and on Sundays during the summer months, and the shuttering of the five kiosk-style community libraries every day of the week. Delays in constructing Tenley as a component of the Mayor’s condominium tower have yet to be established. Work with the Washington area transit authority (WMATA) and engineers over the Metro subway’s impact and that of a high water table on the Watha T. Daniel/Shaw branch library reconstruction schedule is estimated at a delay of only two months.

The continuing controversy over computer labs and literacy efforts are creating a running sore between the Library and advocacy groups, especially those focused on the Benning Road branch library community. Efforts are being made to significantly enhance DCPL outreach, with an emphasis on ANCs, library friends groups, and neighborhood civic associations.

Ironically, these storm clouds are gathering at the same time as Chief Librarian Ginnie Cooper, with the strong support of the Library’s Board of Trustees and the DC Council and an increasingly engaged and professionally led library staff, have succeeded in resuscitating a decrepit urban library system that was literally on life support — more closed than open, with mechanical systems constantly failing and an almost hostile environment greeting the dwindling number of patrons in many of the lesser-used branches and the central library downtown who were gamely attempting to use reduced services and materials.

The results of these efforts at improvement are plain to see: libraries are now open every day of the week with far better hours; four interim library facilities for the four, long-closed branch libraries are now open and are stunning successes. Defying the predictions of nay-sayers, these four temporary library outposts - Tenley/Friendship, Watha T. Daniel/Shaw, Anacostia, and Benning — are bright, cheerful, well-lighted and staffed, and full of new books, CDs, DVDs, and state-of-the-art computers. Equally successful is the American Library Association-supported and the Library Journal-funded “make-over” of the Southeast Library, with a DCPL comparable “make-over” of the Takoma DC branch library being next. Rehabilitation of the Mt. Pleasant branch library, while still in operation, continues with significant successes, and planning for both the reconstruction and expansion — and an interim facility — for the tragically burned Georgetown Library is on schedule.

Other improvements include new books reviewed in the Washington Post and the New York Times, for example, together with best-sellers and popular “how to” books are appearing on library shelves and display tables in a timely fashion, and more and more library patrons are greeted by proactively helpful staff. Improvements to the Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Library building (MLK) are nothing short of miraculous. Banks of new, well-maintained elevators serve both ends of the cleaned and re-lamped building, modern public restroom facilities have been installed on the second and third floors, and the handsomely renovated Children’s Room and Black Studies Division are serving as models for the rest of MLK. A new adaptive services facility at MLK is presently being constructed to replace the outmoded and previously named Blind and Physically Handicapped Division, and a new first floor Young Adult Library and College Information Center is in final plan revision stage.

DCPL’s capital construction planning, implementation, and reporting — which is shared in written form with the public — is a model of public administration professionalism that could be beneficially adopted by the entire District of Columbia government. Based on open procurements with ambitious but straight-forward bid specifications and factual schedule reporting, inspiring results are highlighted in July’s reporting on the handsome designs for the long-planned, four new branch libraries at Tenley/Friendship, Watha T Daniel/Shaw, Anacostia, and Benning.

In yet another double irony that may come to haunt Mayor Fenty’s direct involvement in DC’s entire public library rehabilitation program, the enthusiastically received design and planning for Tenley/Friendship was abruptly replaced by the Mayor at the last minute with a contract award for a mixed-use public private partnership condominium project on top of the library and adjacent Janney Elementary School. With this decision, Fenty disregarded the overwhelming community opposition from ANC commissioners, civic associations, local historic societies, and Friends of the Library. “Smart Growth” advocates, however, applauded the Mayor’s decision. And the winning private developer, LCOR, Inc. of Pennsylvania, vowed to minimize delays in constructing a re-designed library facility beneath the planned apartment tower. Mayor Fenty asserted in a July 10th press release that “the selection [of LCOR, Inc.] presents the opportunity to provide a tremendous financial benefit to Janney Elementary School by using a portion of the proceeds of the deal to support Janney’s modernization.”

A battalion of Tenley/Friendship community activists and ANC commissioners continued their protest of the Mayor’s decision with eloquent testimony before the Trustees’ July 23rd Library Board meeting, effectively rebutting the Mayor and his planning and economic development staff’s assertion to DCPL Board of Trustees Chair John Hill that the LCOR, Inc. proposal had overwhelming community support. Indeed, no one appeared at the library meeting in support of the LCOR Inc. public-private partnership proposal.

Protests and commentary regarding DCPL’s FY ‘2009 budget shortfalls — announced at that same July 23rd meeting — were quick in coming, with Richard Huffine, President of the District-wide Federation of Friends of the DCPL Public Libraries issuing a call to action that urged citizens to write their respective council members. “The Library System needs your help to appeal to the District Council to find the $2 million that will avoid this. calamity [of closed libraries and reduced hours],” Huffine implored in a July 25th email. Robin Diener, Director of the Ralph Nader-founded DC Library Renaissance Project, followed with a press release headlined “Library Contemplates Closing Fridays In Spite of Continued Record Budget Highs.”
In addition to the loss of 71 budgeted positions, DCPL’s operating budget shortfall from FY ‘2008 of $47,634,898 to that of FY ‘2009’s $46,594,621 does not reflect the increases expected from such factors as necessary mandatory personnel cost increases, rising energy costs, and aggressive preventative maintenance programs in aging buildings and facilities.

Mayor Finds Funds

At a hastily called press event on August 4th at the Capitol View branch library in far Southeast, Mayor Fenty announced that he had found funds in a city debt servicing surplus account which would be used to restore library hours, thus avoiding the necessity to close the libraries one day a week as had initially been announced.

Five Reasons Why DCPL rather than LCOR Should Build Our Library

2008-08-10T09:08:00.014-04:00

1. The LCOR deal will delay the library's re-opening by at least two years.

In early July of 2008, when Mayor Fenty told the DCPL to stop work on its standalone reconstruction of the Tenley-Friendship branch library, the DCPL was on track to re-open the facility in March 2010. The design was near-final and had been approved by both the National Capital Planning Commission ("NCPC") and the Commission of Fine Arts ("CFA"). All that remained to be done was to bid out construction services and to have the Council approve the final contract once its summer recess ended. DCPL was ready to break ground this fall.

By contrast, LCOR has indicated that it will take at least 18-24 months (the latter figure described by their rep as "still optimistic but more realistic") from Council approval of the project before they will be ready to break ground. The absolute earliest that the Council could approve the project would be mid-September. Add 18 months and LCOR would be breaking ground in March 2010 -- just as DCPL, left to its own devices, would be opening the new facility. That's the minimum possible initial delay.

And, of course, a nine story mixed-use building involving major excavation and a much larger footprint takes substantially longer to build than a two story library would. Local projects of a comparable scale have taken about 2.5 years from ground-breaking to occupancy, which would place the branch's re-opening somewhere in the Fall of 2012. Even if you assume LCOR can build it in 2 years instead of 2.5, we're still talking about at least a 2 year delay compared to DCPL's schedule.

2. DCPL's design for the library is much better than LCOR's.

Here's an interior image of DCPL's proposed design:

It shows a wide open space with lots of natural light.

You won't get that in LCOR's mixed-use building.

LCOR is proposing a 20,000 SF library on a single floor -- that means that the western end of the library will be underground (i.e. beneath what is now Janney's soccer field).

And if the library sits underneath eight floors of apartments, then it will have to include lots of columns to support the walls used to divide various living spaces above.

The Freelon Group's design for the branch took advantage of the fact that the library was free-standing in a number of ways. It has extraordinarily high ceilings, a second story, a rooftop garden, and clerestory windows for additional light. Most of these features will be eliminated in LCOR's design -- it looks like all we'll be left with is a sort of atrium at the front of the library.

Finally, while DCPL's design team originally aimed for LEED Silver, now that the plans are finished, the architects think they have probably attained Gold status with this project. (LEED is a nationally-recognized system for ranking the "green-ness" of various types of buildings.) By contrast, "certified" is all the Mayor is promising us for the mixed-building library/residential building. That's LEED's minimum standard and it can easily be attained based primarily on attributes inherent in the site.

3. The scale of DCPL's building is better suited to the site.

Both Doug Wonderlic and the Commission of Fine Arts have pointed out how the Freelon design enables the library to function as a civic icon on a prominent corner and as an anchor for an educational/institutional complex. It defines the block as a place set apart and devoted to learning rather than commerce. Moreover, its scale highlights rather than dwarfs the architecturally diverse yet distinctive buildings surrounding it. This block is full of interesting historic buildings -- Janney, St. Ann's, Bon Secours. Its visual focal point should not be a generic apartment tower. There are also a half dozen single family homes here which will be adversely affected by adding a couple hundred new neighbors to their block.

4. A stand-alone project enables us to retain control of this parcel of public land.

We're able to rebuild our old library now precisely because we were able to tear the old one down. And we were able to tear the old one down because it didn't have millions of dollars of private property sitting on top of it. The Friendship Heights bus terminal, located under the office tower at Wisconsin and Western, is a good cautionary tale about what happens to obsolete public facilities in mixed-use buildings. The new (less polluting) buses won't fit under the canopy, yet the canopy can't be raised. Ultimately (when the old buses finally get retired), we're going to have to find more land in an already very built-up and expensive market to host this essential public facility.

We need to retain complete control of the public land we already own in Tenleytown. And this particular parcel is especially crucial because it abuts the school. If, in the future, the land isn't needed for a library, it will still available to the meet the school's needs.

5. DCPL is much more competent than DMPED.

When he announced the deal with LCOR on July 10th, Mayor Fenty effectively removed control of the project from DCPL and handed it over to the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED).

Ginnie Cooper, head of DCPL, has built 50-60 new libraries over the course of her career and has more experience building mixed-use libraries than anyone in the country. Yet she thinks a stand-alone design makes better sense at this site.

By contrast, Deputy Mayor Neil Albert had a horrible track record on construction projects during his tenure at the Department of Parks and Recreation ("DPR"). According to the Inspector General's recent report, substandard facilities delivered years late and grossly over-budget have been the norm at DPR. DMPED is off to a similar start on this project.

When you compare what the two agencies have accomplished over the course of the past year, the contrast is striking.

DMPED took three months to slap together an almost worthless Request for Proposals which yielded three submissions that were universally rejected by the community. It then took another seven months to decide to accept the least acceptable proposal -- and to do so without obtaining any changes in the design -- despite asking twice for its re-design. It has now chosen a developer (without Council approval) with whom it will negotiate exclusively before agreeing on even the most basic terms of the deal. So, basically, what DMPED has in store for us is a no-bid contract that bundles a land sale with two lucrative construction contracts. Not a promising approach.

Meanwhile, DCPL embarked upon a nationwide search for first-class architects (choosing two from the fifty who applied), completed a design, hired a construction manager at risk, priced the materials and altered its selections to ensure that the project would come in at budget, and received design approval from the two agencies (NCPC and CFA) who have input over the project. They're doing everything right.

This should not be a difficult decision. Frankly the only argument for a mixed-use library building is the claim that smart growth requires mixed-use at Metrorail stations. And even that is a misrepresentation of smart growth planning theory. SG theorists advocate mixed-use ZONING -- they don't require mixed-use BUILDINGS -- near transit hubs. We already have such zoning (and the mix of uses it's designed to encourage) at this station. There are a couple hundred apartments, a handful of single-family homes, dozens of stores, office space, and a variety of institutional uses clustered around this station.

There's nothing "smart" about sacrificing the quality of our library and our school. Metro-accessible neighborhoods need and benefit from first-rate public facilities. And excellent schools and libraries located near Metrorail stations, in turn, benefit residents throughout the city because of their accessibility. They are not used exclusively by people who live in the immediate vicinity.

Cheh Joins the Opposition to Tenley Project

2008-08-09T09:57:00.004-04:00

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/dc/2008/08/cheh_joins_the_opposition_to_t.html

Ian Thoms of the NW Current broke this story Wednesday and Michael Neibauer's coverage in The Examiner on Thursday added a few details -- including that Cheh's July 24th letter to Albert on this project was co-signed by Kwame Brown's office and that the letter asked Albert to assure the Council Members that the deal would ultimately meet their "essential conditions."

The group of critics of the development project at the site of the former Tenley-Friendship Library has a new member: Councilmember Mary M. Cheh.

She has serious reservations about the current proposal, which might reduce green space at the neighboring Janney Elementary School.

Cheh (D-Ward 3) had strongly supported construction of a building that would have incorporated a library, shops and apartments. But she said she believes that the proposal that Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) selected in early July would cause problematic delays in the library's construction -- up to two years -- and would also take space away from the elementary school.

"I'm hopeful that there's still room to have elements in this to have an acceptable proposal," Cheh said. "But I made it very clear to [the deputy mayor and the developers] that I was disappointed."

Cheh sent a letter to the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development late last month outlining her concerns.

According to the plan announced in July, the LCOR development firm would build about 130 housing units over a new library. A parking garage would be underground. And city funds gained from the development would be channeled toward a renovation of the Janney Elementary School.

But Janney would lose part of a soccer field, something Cheh had opposed. She also said the amount of money the city would earn from the development "seemed low."

And many in the community had protested the plans, asserting that they had not been involved in the planning processes and that the library system -- which had already drawn up its own plans for a stand-alone building -- should be allowed to build without delay.

"When I'm losing the support of the different groups who were told we would get this advantage and that advantage, it makes it completely untenable" for her to back the development, Cheh said.

She emphasized that the plan was not yet set, and held out hope that her objections would be addressed.

"I am completely for transit-oriented development," she said. "I'm keeping my fingers crossed."

The deputy mayor's office and LCOR have not yet responded to calls for comment.

Michael Birnbaum

Janney -- Before and After

2008-08-07T09:04:00.007-04:00

The aerial photo gives you a sense of current conditions at Janney. The site plan below it shows LCOR's RFP submission -- the only plan they've submitted, despite being asked twice to revise the project. LCOR refused both times (while other developers complied), but LCOR was chosen nonetheless.

Given that history, now is not the time to suspend judgment until we see LCOR's "new plan." We're not at the beginning of this process -- depending on whether you start the clock at the point when the design was originally submitted or wait until it was universally condemned, the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development has had 5 -7 months to negotiate with LCOR on this project and they've gotten nowhere.

So let's look at what happens under LCOR's current proposal.

The first thing to notice is that LCOR's site plan for the school does not include the land that currently provides the school's soccer field and the eastern corner of the teacher's parking lot. All that land (draw a straight line down from the sidewalk along the school building's eastern edge, all the way to the property line) will now become a nine-story apartment building and the driveway to its 200+ space garage. Not only is that land lost to the school forever, but the eastern edge of Janney's historic building loses its natural light.

Natural light is further compromised by the design of the additions, which you can see on the site plan. The kitchen covers the windows on the first floor classroom on the SE corner of the building, while the cafeteria/library annex blocks out the south facing windows of classroms on the second floor (the ground floor is bathrooms). The cafeteria itself will presumably be windowless; the library will have windows only on the east side (in the shadow of the apartment building).

The new classroom wing creates a 30-40 foot courtyard between the southwest wing of the historic building and its own northern facade. That courtyard is envisioned as a hardscape playground. Enclosed on three sides by two- and three-story buildings, it's not going to get much sun either. Janney's third floor classroms on this wing will probably not be compromised, but natural light may be an issue for the other classrooms that face the courtyard, especially in the new building.

Noise also looks like an issue in that courtyard. Imagine trying to teach while the hardscape area is filled with kids at play. The classrooms on the south side of the new wing face similar problems -- especially the two whose windows are about seven feet from the basketball court.

The other hardscape area, east of the gym, will require its own playground supervisor -- it is completely cut off from sightlines otherwise and it abuts a driveway and loading dock. I wouldn't want to be teaching in one of the classrooms next to the driveway/loading dock either. BEEP-BEEP-BEEP every time a truck backs up.

This is the kind of design you get when the goal is to extract revenue from public land. The for-profit component of the project gets the prime real estate and the school has to make do with the leftovers. This is certainly not the campus that would be designed for Janney if DCPS could use all the land and focus exclusively on educational needs.

THE LCOR Deal: What’s in it for Janney?

2008-08-04T20:21:00.003-04:00

Right now, Janney's campus has less land per student than two-thirds of all DCPS elementary schools. After this project is completed, it will fall from the bottom third to the bottom quarter, as the school adds 65 more students, while its outdoor athletics facilities (playing field, basketball courts) shrink to less than half their current size.

"Swing in place" was a reasonable strategy when a stand-alone school modernization project was contemplated, but this public-private project will double the time Janney kids spend trying to learn and play in the midst of a construction zone, surrounded by noise, dust, machinery, and equipment, and fenced off from much of their existing campus. If DCPS keeps the kids on site for the duration of the project, we're probably looking at four consecutive academic years in which the school has to function under cramped and disruptive conditions.

If every aspect of this public-private project goes exceptionally quickly and smoothly, incoming kindergartners will spend this year and most of next under existing conditions at Janney. Construction could start as early as the spring semester of their first grade year and is unlikely to end before they finish fourth grade. During at least part of fourth grade, they'd presumably be in the new wing, with the historic building closed for repairs.

Only in fifth grade would all of the school's facilities be available for their use once again. But at that point these now much bigger kids will find that they have much less space on campus to run and play than they did as 5-year-olds. And, among current Janney students, the kindergartners are the lucky ones - children in higher grades will share the pain but not the gain. Kids who first arrive once the dust has settled will find themselves on a campus that has only half as much land per student as neighboring Lafayette (and which abuts an apartment building rather than a rec center). Where would you rather send your child?

We don’t need to allow private development on Janney’s campus in order to get the school modernized and expanded. The March 31st consultant-authored draft of DCPS’s Master Facilities Plan envisioned and budgeted for a stand-alone reconstruction at Janney that would require only two years of construction and be completed by 2012 (rather than 2013 at the earliest). And, under that scenario, facilities planners would have at least 2/3 of an acre more land to work with as they expand and modernize the school than they will if there's a public-private development project.

The obvious and inescapable question: What's in this deal for Janney? Substandard facilities, delivered later, and through a process that is much more disruptive of the kids’ education. Tell the Council you’re not interested. And while you’re at it, cc the Mayor and the developer.

mcheh@dccouncil.us
vgray@dccouncil.us
schwartzc@dccouncil.us
kbrown@dccouncil.us
hthomas@dccouncil.us
pmendelson@dccouncil.us
dcatania@dccouncil.us
yalexander@dccouncil.us
mbowser@dccouncil.us
twells@dccouncil.us
mbarry@dccouncil.us
jgraham@dccouncil.us
jackevans@dccouncil.us

adrian.fenty@dc.gov, mayor@dc.gov, amf@dc.gov

TSmith@lcor.com

Public Engagement (Op-Ed in the Current)

2008-08-02T10:10:00.004-04:00

from The Northwest Current, July 30, 2008 (p. 8)

Mayor Adrian Fenty has pushed an aggressive economic development agenda since taking office. The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development now has a portfolio of more than $13 billion worth of projects, ranging from a $1.4 billion new waterfront neighborhood east of Capitol Hill to a solicitation for development partners for three Petworth sites on Georgia Avenue. It’s commendable that the projects, in the mayor’s words, are “back on track” and moving “as fast as possible.” But we worry that the desire for action is too often cutting out the opportunity for reasonable community input.

The proposed public-private partnership at the site of the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library and Janney Elementary School is a key example. The actions of the city’s economic development officials make it seem that they are not interested in listening to neighbors — a radical disconnect from the Adrian Fenty approach during his tenure on the D.C. Council and during his mayoral campaign.

Community leaders had to file Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain public documents. The city-sponsored meetings held ostensibly to vet proposals did not provide an opportunity for unfettered questions. Instead, city officials selected queries from among those submitted on note cards by audience members.

And when the mayor was ready to announce his administration’s choice of LCOR Inc. to develop an apartment building atop a new library, he did so at a hastily arranged outdoor news conference — held just a few hours after an early-morning announcement was distributed to the media. Even Ward 3 Council member Mary Cheh — who had pressed for consideration of a public-private partnership at the site — was caught off-guard and ended up speaking without having had the opportunity to see the final proposal. The administration did not hold a community meeting to discuss the details in the days before the announcement, nor has it held one since.

This doesn’t seem sustainable. In contrast, the same office is pursuing the correct course in the West End — after initial missteps that led to such a public outcry that the D.C. Council rescinded legislation authorizing negotiations about a land sale. Since then, the deputy mayor’s office has allowed neighbors to take the lead in analyzing facilities needs. And now the office is holding its second public meeting on the community’s desires.

As the city continues its ambitious development pace, it should replicate its West End approach, not its many mistakes in Tenley.

Another distinguished facilities planner weighs in on why this PPP is fundamentally ill-conceived

2008-07-30T17:49:00.010-04:00

Al Peter is a DC native who has lived in Tenleytown since 1941. He has had an impressive career in facilities planning, working primarily for the federal government (GSA, USPS, HHS, VA), but also for Philadelphia's public schools, and as a private consultant. Mr. Peter sent the following letter to Mayor Fenty in response to his July 10th announcement.

July 28, 2008

Adrian M. Fenty, Mayor
John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mayor Fenty:

When we spoke at the Tenleytown site on July 10, following your presentation concerning the award of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) for the construction of the new library, Janney school expansion, and a housing complex, you asked me to summarize my comments reflecting the serious community objections to this move by the city. I regret the delay in responding, partially due to sudden, urgent travel, but also to the considerable time I took to research and ensure your understanding of the issues, and how you have been grossly misled in arriving at your decision. Two photographs are included to assist in that understanding. Also, at the conclusion I have included a statement of my personal credentials in addressing the issues associated with this project.

THE TENLEYTOWN SITE

It has an unique and distinguished educational character which, with its library, has served the broad range of educational programs of seven separate educational institutions ranging from pre-kindergarten to graduate college programs. In addition, it has provided a valuable support to the Iona Senior Services facility just across the street from the Janney school.

These institutions and other facilities of interest are clearly identified in aerial photo #1, including the library before it was destroyed.

THE LIBRARY

Prior to its destruction, many children came by METRO from outside the local community to use the library since it had evening hours most nights of the week. There was no justification whatever for closing and demolishing that valuable community asset almost five years ahead of any definitive program for replacement, and years before the start of any active communication with the community. That unwarranted action deprived the entire community of a major cultural, intellectual and social resource The community as a whole has been seriously impacted by its loss. Any attempt to justify that action as an economy move, and jamming a small fraction of the library activities into a vacant, leased store front four blocks away would be insulting. That rash move by the city has the appearance of an attempt to reduce or eliminate community input by advancing a preconceived agreement with private interests.

INCREASING LOSS OF CONSTRUCTION FUNDS

Funds available for the replacement library are rapidly eroding through escalating construction costs. In the past 7 years, since "9/11" such costs in the DC area have increased 47%. For the first 4 years of that period, annual increases ranged from 5% to 6%, but with the current economic crises, the rate for sub-contractor services and materials alone is approaching 1% per month. Remembering that such costs are compounded over the years, it now appears that close to $3 million LESS is available for construction. Such losses through years of inaction are inexcusable!

HOUSING DOES NOT BELONG ON THIS SITE

The current proposal to incorporate a housing complex into the expansion needs of the Janney School and replacement library is not only ludicrous but flies against the primary interest of preserving the educational requirements and character of that entire site. The relatively small number of proposed housing units does not provide any significant inroad to the city's long-term housing objectives, but does significantly impact the current, urgent long-term educational needs of this community. Such a housing facility, along with tenant parking requirements and additional roadway access, adversely impacts the expanded functional requirements of both the Janney School, the library, and the need for increased open space. It must also be emphasized that in addition to the existing traffic density at that busy intersection, the associated vehicular tenant come-and-go traffic introduces a new set of serious safety issues to a site densely populated by our youth.

More appropriate mixed use, high density housing projects are currently in the discussion stages for two large nearby sites: One, just a block north contains the recently closed one-story Billiards Parlor with a square footage footprint virtually identical to the library site. However, vehicular access for tenants from that Brandywine side street presents a vastly superior safety situation than access from the busy Albermarle street.

The second site, just another block north, houses the large auto dealership, and presents even superior site benefits. Again, both of these sites are a short walk from the METRO entrance. It should be noted that future housing units at those two sites would contain a variety of necessary supporting retail facilities at the ground level which would not be available at the library site.

The proposed towering residence on top of the library just across from the entrance to St. Ann's Academy, is an architectural blunder in violating the principle of appropriate scale with adjacent structures. In addition, it reflects a monstrous disregard of the interests of that institution by essentially walling it in, virtually obscuring its existence, and destroying its visual contact with adjacent related activities.

JUST A WORD ABOUT ST. ANN'S ACADEMY:

Contrary to popular perceptions, it does not function as a parochial parish school. With a student population almost half that of Janney, less than 10 percent of its 220students are actually from the Parish of St. Ann, and less than 50 percent are from Catholic families. Instead, the vast majority are transported every day from the lowest socioeconomic areas from across the city. The total cost for providing this educational program is not covered by the modest tuition and extended care costs. Instead, the parish absorbs a considerable amount of the actual cost of operating this 140 year old respected institution, which in recognition of its contribution to the needs of our youth, was recently chosen by the White House to represent the Faith Based Schools in the Washington area. This honor took place in April at a symposium during which one of St. Ann's eighth grade students was honored to introduce the President of the United States. The Parish's dedication to this Academy is rooted in its outreach to underprivileged children, in the belief that it ensures that "some seeds fall on fertile ground," in preparing them for responsible adulthood.

PROXIMITY TO METRO

Apparently, this factor was a major contributor to the misdirection of incorporating housing into dense educational site requirements. As mentioned above, more appropriately, high-density, mixed use housing, including affordable units with supporting ground level retail services would be ideally suited for the two sites a short walk away.

OPEN SPACE NEEDS

Photograph #2 is a close-up view of the site, clearly showing the very limited open space currently available for the critical sports, recreational and social programs of the Janney school. That space is seriously threatened by the Janney expansion as proposed.

The "promise" to make sure that any Public Private Partnership concept does not result in a net reduction of Janney's open space is another glaring element of short sighted planning: With Janney's planned enrollment increase from the current 485 to 550 students, the focus must be to INCREASE the open space for the students.

CONCLUSION

The current PPP concept, being revenue directed and profit oriented is not appropriate for this project. This misdirection and apparent maneuvering to suppress effective community input has undermined the traditional and valid process for appropriate planning, budgeting, and construction administration. To repeat, since an acceptable library design is complete, the construction must proceed without delay, with sufficient supplemental funding as required to restore this much needed asset to the whole community.

As to the expressed concerns about the probable need to close Janney during construction, I urge caution in accepting this as unavoidable. It may well be unavoidable if the library and Janney expansion were to proceed under a joint development project. On the other hand, a completed library could possibly provide some swing space which, in addition to on site temporary facilities and phased construction, may obviate the need for relocating students. This potential cries out for serious study to avoid the enormous difficulties and family disruptions faced by hundreds of households, as well as the disenfranchising of the affected students from their immediate neighborhood school.

REQUESTED ACTIONS

Mr. Mayor, the PPP concept you currently support is ill-conceived. It gravely impacts the comprehensive plan for satisfying all necessary educational needs and community support activities, by side stepping critical open space needs, and by incorporating unnecessary, and damaging housing units. This fact grossly outweighs the proximity to Metro, and the relatively meager revenue around which this concept was advanced. The unwarranted destruction of our active library and the unnecessary intrusion of a housing concept in this overall plan gives rise to the perception of supporting private interests to the detriment of community necessities. We respectfully request that the current concept be abandoned, and the construction of the library be advanced immediately. The completion of the complex design for the Janney expansion will require more time, and thusshould proceed independently. For those who would dismiss this suggested restart on the basis of further delay, I hasten to point out the likelihood of a much longer delay should the Tenleytown community follow through with a court injunction for a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement, and pursue the abuse of procedures required for insuring proper involvement of the DC City Council and the community.

Mr. Mayor, your serious attention to correct the grave problems stated herein is urgently required.

Respectfully,

Albert A. Peter, Jr.

Click on the image to see a full-sized version.

Swing Space Issues

2008-07-30T10:58:00.008-04:00

Where will the Janney kids learn (and play) while this project is under construction?

In contemplating a stand-alone school modernization project, DCPS has always assumed that Janney students could “swing in place” – i.e. remain on campus – while their new facilities are being constructed. Under that scenario, this was a realistic assumption. Because the new classroom facilities will be approximately as large as the main building currently is, once they are completed, the school could move into them as the old building is modernized. Demountables would, no doubt, have to be moved around at various stages of construction (with a resultant temporary loss of play space), but basically the current level of overcrowding could be maintained throughout the renovation process. Moreover, because the sole objective of the project would be to better meet the school’s facilities needs, construction would, presumably, be scheduled to minimize disruption to the students’ education rather than to further other goals.

Though DCPS has yet to acknowledge it, the “swing in place” approach becomes much less viable (or attractive) if Janney is to be modernized as part of a public-private venture incorporating the library and a large multifamily residential building. The scale and duration of construction changes dramatically. Significant excavation will be required. Less land will be available for relocating classrooms and outdoor playspaces. And a variety of stakeholders with competing interests will have a say in what gets done where, when, and how.

When asked about this issue back in March at a public meeting sponsored by ANC 3E, LCOR (the developer Fenty wishes to select for this project) indicated that they would prefer to have Janney students off campus during construction. That approach, which they used for the Oyster PPP, would be faster, cheaper, and safer. LCOR indicated that if the kids were to be kept on campus, it would extend the length of the construction phase by at least another year and that, while they would work hard to minimize disruption to the school, the learning environment would inevitably be less than optimal. The kids’ safety could certainly be ensured, but doing so would shrink the space available on campus for their use even further.

To get a sense of the logistics involved, click on the "ANC 3E's Website" link under the Documents heading to your right (you may have to scroll up to see it). Find the Janney School/LCOR document and print out pages 5-7 and 10. You might also want to print out Appendix A and B (1 page each) from the RFP; scroll down to find them under "2007." Now start imagining the construction sites at various stages of the process. (Likely order: (1) underground garage and foundation for mixed-use building, (2) library/apartment building, (3) new school building(s), (4) modernization of old building (some work could be done earlier during summer months when the rooms are not in use), (5) removal of demountables, reconstruction of playgrounds and fields.) What follows is my attempt to work through the logistics. During the RFP revision process, the ANC specifically asked for this planning to be done and included with the proposals, but DMPED ignored that request. So we're stuck figuring it out ourselves as best we can. Email me (smithhemb@aol.com) if you come up with something better than/different from the scenarios that follow.

The other thing that needs to be figured out is how long each phase will last. Judging from recent local experience on projects of comparable size, the first phase is probably about 4-6 months and the second phase is more like 2 years. I'm guessing that phases 3, 4, and 5 will take place over the course of two school years-- that's what DCPS's budgeting seems to assume for a stand-alone rebuild and that’s what Oyster took. Plus, it's hard to believe it could be accomplished in one, especially with the kids on site (which means that the renovations to the older building and new construction can't proceed simultaneously because, during the school year, one part must be available for use while work proceeds on the other part). The outstanding question is to what extent phases 2 and 3 can be overlapped. If they can't, we're probably looking at at least 4 years of construction on site. If they can, it could be closer to 3 years. (This is real time -- not academic years. 36 months could span 4 school years)

The edge of the excavation for the garage will be about 15 feet from the Wisconsin Avenue side of Janney’s main building and it will run along that edge of campus from the sidewalk at Albemarle Street to a point about 20 feet short of the Saint Ann’s alley. Remember that construction sites need access roads (and quite long ones to lower trucks into deep holes). At this stage, unless the alley from Yuma can be used (and it looks too narrow for construction vehicles), it would seem as if 42nd Street would be the only way to route vehicles into the site. (At a later stage, access might be from Albemarle, using the new driveway for the garage.) So imagine a curb cut on 42nd near the southern edge of the playground, traversing campus. Factor in safety perimeters as well. And construction sites typically also need areas for staging materials, for storing equipment, and for onsite office space for construction managers. None of this can go on the library land because it’s a big hole in the ground at this stage and the lot will be 100% occupied by the library/residential building once the hole is covered.

In this first stage, Janney’s former soccer field is also a big hole, so nothing can be relocated there either. Later on, most of it will be covered by an apartment building and 20’ of the 40’ between the school and that building will be devoted to a road running down the middle of this strip of land. The 10' margin on the school's side of that road will probably be useless -- it's too narrow for a demountable and too close to traffic for a playground. Perhaps some of the garage space can be used for construction materials storage at this stage (i.e. during the (2 year?) period in which the library/residential building is being constructed.)

Once the library/residential building is finished and work begins in earnest on the new school building, the entire construction operation will be housed on Janney’s now-reduced campus. The library and residences will be in active use and they consume all of the library’s land as well as what used to be the school's soccer field and part of the teacher's parking lot. The garage will also be in use – which means teacher parking can be relocated there, but construction materials probably can’t be stored in that location any more.

While the new school building is under construction, the existing demountables will still be in use, but at least one will have to be moved out of the path of the new building. At this stage there will be a demolition project (the old gym/cafeteria addition will be removed) and perhaps a reconstruction project (patching the hole its removal leaves in the center of the school's southern wall), followed by two construction sites -- one 40' from (and parallel to) the school's SW quadrant and another perpendicular to and abutting the school's southeast quadrant.

At this stage, the blacktop area is essentially eliminated (some of it will be reclaimed post-construction) and the kids will probably be limited to the playground space on the 42nd street side of campus (assuming that construction vehicles can be routed through Albemarle), which may have to house the relocated demountable as well (although it seems likely that construction related attrition will drive out enough students that maybe that demountable can be eliminated). Because the new wing extends at least 40' beyond the old building on the west side, some of that playground space will be cut into and, for safety reasons, more of it may be temporarily off-limits to students. Perhaps some additional play space at the southern edge of the campus (i.e. the future location of the playing field) can remain accessible during this phase.

Janney's SIT has said its support for the PPP is contingent upon the kids staying on campus during construction. The additional question that needs to be asked at this point is not "at what cost and for how long?" I'd be really hesitant to have my kid spending half of elementary school in a cramped construction zone. And for what? To end up with a campus where the athletic facilities have been cut in half to make way for an apartment building. The rush to do it quicker (rather than to do it better) seems really short-sighted when it means that the process is much more disruptive and the outcome is less appealing. At the rate, we're going, maybe next year's PreK and K classes will still be on campus to enjoy the new buildings, but at the cost of spending most of their elementary school years under really substandard conditions. The older kids get the pain without the gain. And the newcomers are spared the pain, but their kids will have lost 2/3 of an acre of athletic facilities. Who benefits from this approach?

The Janney SIT's letter to the Mayor in response to his July 10th announcement

2008-07-30T09:54:00.002-04:00

July 21, 2008

Dear Mayor Fenty,

The Janney School Improvement Team (SIT) met on July 15, 2008 to discuss the recently announced selection of LCOR as a negotiating partner to explore a Public Private Partnership (PPP) with the city. The Janney SIT has previously agreed, after some debate, to consider development proposals that would require the Janney School to give up part of its campus to the proposed development.

The overriding reason Janney is willing to cede part of its campus is because Janney urgently needs modernization and expansion. A Blue Ribbon School with a history of excellent academic achievement, The Janney School is also the most overcrowded school in the DCPS system, and in great need of modernization (built in 1925). The building’s capacity is 364 and the expected population for the 2008-2009 year is over 500 students. There is one restroom for all those students on the first floor. There are five classrooms combined into three demountables (trailers) clogging Janney’s playground.

The average class size in the primary grades regularly exceeds 25 children and approaches 30 per class. Janney turns away 3 out of 4 applicants for Pre-Kindergarten, and has not accepted any out of bounds students in the primary grades in years, despite a long waiting list. There is one room for school-wide meetings that is also our lunch room and gym. Because of a lack of space, some counselors meet in converted closets, and meetings happen in the hallways. Despite all of that, wonderful things happen here.

In light of these space and condition issues, the SIT would like to reiterate its conditional support for a PPP under the following terms:

1. An addition to the school that meets the latest specifications from DCPS. This would mean adding approximately 39,000 square feet to the existing structure to accommodate an expected student body of 550, as currently foreseen in the DCPS Capital Improvement Plan;

2. Modernization of the existing Janney school building, bringing it up to current building codes and improving its electrical system, heating and cooling systems, bringing it into compliance with the ADA, and increasing the number of student restrooms;

3. An earlier time schedule for these repairs and modernizations, with construction plans in place by 2009 and construction scheduled to be completed in 2012;

4. Moving Janney’s current surface parking lot underground, thereby allowing the school to replace the play area that it would lose to an expanded library or residential building with an equal amount of green space (no net loss of green space);

5. Ensuring that the students remain on the Janney campus during the construction phase of the expansion and modernization (swing in space); and

6. Meaningful opportunities for Janney community involvement and input on plans and processes relating to and affecting the Janney School.

Our support for the project is conditioned on the above principles being formalized in writing as either a Directive from the Office of the Mayor to the responsible agencies or a Memorandum of Understanding between DCPS and the Office of Economic Development.

The Janney School Improvement Team is supportive of moving forward on the modernization of Janney with the above principles, whether the PPP goes forward or not. This letter is not intended as an indication that the Janney School community is unanimous in support of the PPP. The Janney community is diverse with varying opinions on most all subjects. However, there is near unanimity that Janney School, as the most crowded school in DCPS, is in need of an addition and quick modernization. We look forward to continuing these talks and to participating in what we envision as a positive result for the community.

Sincerely,

The Janney School Improvement Team

Kirk Rankin, SIT chair
Tawana Franklin, Staff rep.
Laure Hunter, Teacher
Shellie Wood, Teacher
Andrew Smiles, Parent
Karen Martin, Parent
Allison Feeney, Parent
Karen Langford, Teacher
Mary Osterman, Teacher
Malin Kerwin, Teacher
Karen Kalat, PTA rep.
Sczerina Perot, PTA rep.
Marijke Gero, Teacher
Jane Malhotra, Parent
Cheryl Ohlson, Parent
Brenda Petteway, Acting Principal

InTowner Op-Ed on Tenleytown Announcement

2008-07-13T16:37:00.003-04:00

From the Publisher's Desk...

MAYORAL EFFORTS TO FREEZE OUT CITIZEN STAKEHOLDERS OUGHT ULTIMATELY TO BACKFIRE COME ELECTION TIME
Published: July 11th, 2008

On the same day we were getting ready to go to press and trying to decide what our topic for this space should be this month, we noticed that the Washington Post reporters who write the “District Notebook” feature which appears in the District Weekly section had picked up on an example of a truly bad way of conducting city business by the Office of the Mayor and its various satellites.

Specifically, what these reporters were exposing is what we here refer to as press release by stealth — that is, notices to the press about important matters that are to be publicly announced but not sent out until after business hours, or very late on a Friday or the day before a holiday. To that ruse we can also add the phenomenon of press releases informing of a public announcement event being sent out on the same day just hours before the event, thus ensuring a mad scramble at best but more likely not much in the way of attendance.

The writers cited some examples of bad news or controversial announcements which by having been slipped under the door after offices had closed for the weekend or holiday might go fairly unnoticed. The mayor’s spokesperson countered with some excuses about the need to get all sorts of different entities to sign off or the rush of business, etc. and also stated that, notwithstanding instances of short notice, reporters nevertheless always seem to be on top of things and either do show up or know to call and get what they need.

All of what the Mayor’s person says may or may not be true, but to us that is not the real issue that needs to be addressed. Those of us who work at keeping tabs on city government operations are not the ones as to which this press release by stealth is such an insidious development. It is how this tactic ensures that community leaders and individual citizen activists — and even just folk — who perform yeoman service in the call to keep close watch on the politicians and the bureaucracy (the press can’t do it all) are frozen out is what is so insidious. And that is what the Mayor and his minions are striving to achieve by this tactic.

An excellent case in point surfaced on the very morning that the “District Notebook” column appeared and on this very day we are writing our commentary. We refer to the nearly secret alert by email dispatched from the Office of the Mayor, with the subject line blank (!), at 7:52 a.m. for a 10:45 a.m. of a mayoral press conference in Tenleytown to announce the selection of the “public-private partnership” developer for the very controversial Janney School/Tenley Library site. That was only an advance notice of two hours and 53 minutes, assuming people were actually at their computer screens at that hour.

By putting out that announcement in such a stealthy manner it is clear to us that the intention was to ensure that concerned citizens would have been totally unaware that the public announcement event had been suddenly moved back one full day; everyone had been under the impression that it was to be midday the next day — Friday (bad enough, since right before the start of a summer weekend). Ironically, as it turned out, thanks to one savvy neighbor getting wind of the change and a very effective neighborhood alert system, over 50 residents did show up to the obvious displeasure of the Mayor; almost no press was there, probably because reporters would likely have zapped the incoming email that bore no subject matter line.

Not only have Ward 3 school and library activists been up in arms about how they see the city administration going about the process to build a new school and new library as part of a residential and commercial complex, but so have ordinary residents.

(Not unlike what’s going down in Tenleytown, a similar deal for the West End Branch Library so outraged Dupont Circle and Foggy Bottom residents about how that process was unfolding that they ultimately prevailed and the deal imploded. Both the West End and Tenleytown library controversies were the subject of an extensive report in this newspaper last year. See, “West End Library Site Transfer to EastBanc Controversy Now Part of Larger Issue About District’s Embrace of Public-Private Deals,” InTowner, September 2007, page 1.)

Shortly after the mayoral “dog and pony show” in Tenleytown the chair of the area’s Advisory neighborhood Commission (ANC 3E), Amy McVey, joined by Commissioner Anne Sullivan, issued a blistering condemnation in a well-articulated document titled, “Community Outraged at Fenty’s Announcement of Public-Private Redevelopment Project at Tenleytown Site.” The full text is to be posted on the Commission’s website, www.anc3e.org, and we urge our readers to see it there. The concluding paragraph, especially, so mirrors our own views that we have taken the liberty of sharing it with our readership, as follows:

“The complaints voiced today in Tenleytown — about both the process and the substance of the Fenty Administration’s public land deals — echo concerns that have been expressed throughout the city, most notably in response to the subsequently overturned emergency legislation regarding public property in the West End last summer and the school closures. Groups like EmpowerDC are pushing for legislative reform and stepped up Council oversight to ensure that public land serves public needs rather than functions as a source of patronage to be bestowed on favored developers. The Fenty Administration’s lawless approach to the disposition of public land has got to stop. The city is making decisions about the use of public land that are neither rational nor democratic. By law, the Council needs to surplus public land before it is offered for private development and ANCs are to be accorded “great weight” in decisions regarding local public facilities needs.”

Community Outraged at Fenty’s Announcement of Public-Private Redevelopment Project at Tenleytown Site

2008-07-13T11:56:00.004-04:00

[[This is the text of a press release I sent out Thursday afternoon to give journalists another perspective on Fenty's announcement (and DMPED's press release) that morning.]]

In an unpublicized press conference, whose date and time were changed in the early morning hours, Mayor Adrian Fenty announced his decision to pursue a public-private redevelopment project involving the Tenley-Friendship Library and the Janney Elementary School, located at the southwest corner of Wisconsin Avenue and Albemarle Street in Tenleytown. No representative from DCPS – neither from Michelle Rhee’s office nor from Allen Lew’s -- was standing by his side with representatives from LCOR, the private development company chosen for the project. DC Chief Librarian, Ginnie Cooper and John Hill, President of the Library Board of Trustees, were also absent, although DCPL Construction Manager Jeff Bonvechio was called to the microphone to affirm that the library would work with the Deputy Mayor’s office and its chosen developer. Ward 3 Council Member Mary Cheh was present to lend her (somewhat equivocal) support, but, when questioned, she acknowledged that she had not seen LCOR’s best and final offer.

Local activists speculate the Fenty kept the press conference under wraps because he knew that his announcement would be greeted with outrage, both because it violates the “model process” DMPED promised, in the wake of the West End debacle, to use for the disposition of public land and because, once the community saw the proposals submitted in response to an RFP issued for the site, neighborhood opposition to a joint project quickly became overwhelming. Previously, the community had been divided over whether a public-private redevelopment option was worth exploring. But once residents saw the proposals, many people who had previously been either supportive of, or undecided about, a joint public-private redevelopment of this site became convinced that the costs to the school and library were too great and that the community would not realize any benefit from using public land for this purpose. The Janney School SIT/LSRT (a parent-teacher organization that deals with facilities issues) rejected all three proposals that emerged from the RFP, including the LCOR’s submission which, according to Mayor Fenty, was the basis for today’s selection. In short, opposition to the project became near-unanimous once the community saw what a public-private joint venture would look like in practice.

In February 2008, Fenty promised the Tenleytown Neighbors Association, a local civic association that the project would not go forward without the support of the community. Deputy Mayor Neil Albert, who rejected the ANC’s request for community representation on the RFP selection panel, had repeatedly promised that the community would “get another bite of the apple” – a chance to see and comment upon the selection panel’s recommendation – before any decision was made. Both those promises were broken today, a point made repeatedly by a number of angry residents who attended the press conference. They pointed out that the community had overwhelming opposed this project, citing not only the ANC’s stance, but resolutions from six different local civic associations and emails from nearly 100 individuals, calling for the public-private development option to be rejected. Not a single local organization offered its support for any of the three submissions received in response to the RFP.

“It’s like a cruel joke,” said Sue Hemberger who has served on an ANC special committee that has been studying the project since last May. “The community has spent a year working with DCPL on a design, DCPL has spent over a million dollars on the project and is two steps away from ground-breaking, both the community and the Commission on Fine Arts have praised the library’s design, and now DMPED steps in and stops the project dead in its tracks.” Community members question why Neil Albert has been given the right to put public land that is in active use – this is DCPS’s most overcrowded elementary school and it was one of the busiest branch libraries – on the auction block without the consent of the Council or the agency involved. They point out that, under the LEAD Act, very different process has been legally mandated for decisionmaking regarding public-private development projects that involve the use of the library system’s land and/or associated development rights.

“From a public facilities standpoint, we’re getting less, we’re getting it later, and we’re paying more. It’s insane,“ said ANC 3E Commissioner Anne Sullivan. “Building an apartment building on this site guarantees that DCPS’s educational specifications for playground and sports facilities cannot be met on Janney’s campus. The kids will lose. ”

Neighbors point out that one block north of the site, at Wisconsin and Brandywine, there is a residential project that has gone unbuilt for years now because there’s no market for the units. There’s no shortage of underdeveloped privately owned land in this area that could be used for multifamily residential construction which leads them to question the need to devote public land – including the elementary school’s soccer field – to residential development.

But this particular project is especially attractive to developers because it will be heavily subsidized. The RFP for the project offered respondents the capital funds already allocated to rebuild the library and to expand the school and all three respondents asked for additional subsidies for the project in the form of a TIF or PILOT bonds. This means that the developer awarded this deal gets two public works construction contracts (with profit already built in) as well as the use of valuable public land and probably some tax breaks and reduced financing costs for construction loans. On top of that, the developers hope to charge the city both to build public parking underground (an expense that wouldn’t otherwise be necessary) and to subsidize the construction of affordable housing.

The complaints voiced today in Tenleytown – about both the process and the substance of the Fenty Administration’s public land deals – echo concerns that have been expressed throughout the city, most notably in response to the subsequently overturned emergency legislation regarding public property in the West End last summer and the school closures. Groups like EmpowerDC are pushing for legislative reform and stepped up Council oversight to ensure that public land serves public needs rather than functions as a source of patronage to be bestowed on favored developers. The Fenty Administration’s lawless approach to the disposition of public land has got to stop. The city is making decisions about the use of public land that are neither rational nor democratic. By law, the Council needs to surplus public land before it is offered for private development and ANCs are to be accorded “great weight” in decisions regarding local public facilities needs.

Why Janney Shouldn't Have to Give Up ANY of its Land for Private Use

2008-05-17T15:02:00.023-04:00

Originally, the logic behind the public-private project (PPP) was that Janney Elementary School would receive more and better public facilities sooner if it partnered with a private developer and DCPL to redevelop the Wisconsin and Albemarle site. But as the RFP submissions indicated, the outcome is more likely to be fewer facilities later -- not only for the library, but for the school as well. In response to those submissions, the Janney LSRT (aka SIT) has attempted to draw a line in the sand -- it does not want to see more than 12,000 SF of Janney's land (the size of the teachers' parking lot) devoted to private development. But that position cedes too much.

1. The objective in undertaking this project shouldn't be "preservation of green space" but "provision of facilities." Just as Janney needs to double its interior instructional space to relieve overcrowding, so, too, does it need to expand its exterior programmatic space (PE field and playgrounds) to meet the need of its students as defined by DCPS's own educational specifications. Obviously, current specifications didn't exist when Janney was originally built, but DCPS's policy is to build to these specifications, where possible, whenever an older campus undergoes modernization. "Where possible" is the crucial qualifier here -- if a part of the campus is dedicated to another use (e.g. private residential development) prior to this renovation, "what's possible" changes. DCPS will work with whatever land is left over rather than the whole campus.

Even without a residential building in the mix, it will take careful planning to find a way to fit all of the requisite facilities on Janney's campus. Janney's entire lot is 3.29 acres and the exterior programmatic spaces called for in the ed specs would consume about 2 acres of land (not including buffers and passageways). The main school building is historic and it's set back from the street. This will probably mean that we can't raise the roof and we may not be able to build out toward Albemarle either. So the design challenge is to figure out how to put another building, approximately the size of the current one, on campus and still have 2 acres of usable land left over. To achieve this, existing land will have to be used more efficiently (e.g. the teacher's parking lot would not remain in its current form). Decrease the amount of land available (by devoting it to non-educational uses), and it will be physically impossible to provide all such facilities.

2. It doesn't make sense to compare what exists now to what a PPP will provide -- or to assume that the un- or under-utilized land on Janney's campus is surplus. It's land currently available (and necessary) for providing educational facilities. The relevant benchmark for assessing whether Janney is better off with a PPP is a DCPS renovation/expansion that uses the entire existing campus to meet current educational specifications.

3. Janney already has less land per student than 2/3 of all DCPS elementary schools. And that's before the school's capacity is increased to 550 students (approximately 65 more kids than are currently enrolled). It makes no sense to shrink the campus while expanding the student body.

4. Certainly, there are some DCPS elementary schools that are already worse off than Janney would be post-PPP. Most were built in the 19th century in already densely-populated areas like Capitol Hill, Dupont Circle, or downtown at a time when land was scarce and schools consisted primarily of large classrooms and desks. Do we want to turn back the clock or move forward?

5. There is, of course, one quite recent example of a land-starved DCPS elementary school campus. That's Oyster -- the product of a public-private partnership (with LCOR, in fact). The school lost over an acre of its land to an apartment building and, as a result, now has a tiny playground and no field or green space. What's more, Oyster was seriously overcrowded within two years of its reconstruction. Don't assume that DCPS won't enter into a PPP without ensuring that the project will meet the school's immediate and long-term facilities needs. History tells us otherwise and, thus far, DCPS has been only minimally engaged in this PPP process.

6. While Oyster was, arguably, the product of a desperate time that called for desperate measures, DCPS now has a dedicated funding source for school modernizations and a separate Office of Public Education Facilities Management, headed by Allen Lew who has an excellent track record on other facilities projects and who, in less than a year working with DCPS, has already achieved dramatic results. The city has the resources -- both financial and organizational -- to get this project done without sacrificing public land to private development.

7. Nor has DCPS demanded that other schools sacrifice land in order to merit remodernization. Key Elementary, in Palisades, was expanded and remodernized in 2003, at a time when it had only 200 students (vs. 485) on a campus that was almost as large as Janney's (3.17 acres) but the full campus was devoted to the school. Stoddert Elementary has twice as much land as Janney and half the students. Yet its excess land won't be devoted to apartments or condos -- instead, the city is using to build a rec center that will provide sports, arts, and performance space for the school as well as the community. Other successful schools in affluent parts of DC with more available land have not been required to give up part of their campus in order to secure the educational facilities to which they are entitled.

8. Those of you familiar with Lafayette Elementary's campus might also be reminded that, for some schools, campus size tells only part of the story. Adjacent location of recreational centers expands the sports and playground facilities available to the school. Our community's recreational facilities (at Fort Reno and Turtle Park) are too far away from Janney to serve as a resource for the school. That's why adequate playground and field space on campus is so important.

9. Janney's exterior facilities serve not only the school, but the community. In previous closures (e.g. of the old Hardy campus in Palisades), fields and playgrounds remained in the public domain even when the school building itself was leased and they remain in constant use by neighbors, sports clubs, other schools, etc. It would be ironic if the Council decided that the playground and sports facilities of underutilized schools now being closed could not be sold off but must revert to community use while simultaneously authorizing the sale or lease of land devoted to the same use at an overcrowded school. Yet that's where we're headed with this PPP.

10. Note that all of the comparisons made thus far have been to other DCPS elementary schools and to DCPS's own facilities standards. Thus the claim that people who want to preserve Janney's existing campus for educational use are unrealistic about what's possible in the city and/or have a suburban mentality is bunk. Janney's campus is just over 3 acres. When Montgomery County sets out to build a new elementary school, it looks for a 12 acre site. Even an older, close-in MoCo school like Bethesda Elementary has a 7.5 acre campus and serves 100 fewer students than Janney will post-expansion.

The argument that the site's proximity to a Metrorail station requires that it be devoted to high-density mixed-use development is equally disingenuous. First, the development adjacent to the Tenleytown station is already mixed-use -- residential, retail, office, and institutional uses are all represented in the immediate vicinity. And the block that houses Janney Elementary is already high-density -- there are 800 students and teachers there each weekday and 1000 parishioners each weekend. But, more importantly, if the policy objective is to decrease automobile-dependency by encouraging more people to live near public transit, then depriving Metro-accessible schools (and neighborhoods) of sports facilities and playgrounds is counterproductive. It tells families that the best way to ensure that their childrens' schools will have decent athletic and recreational facilities is to move away from transit hubs.

I've included a few google maps to illustrate what's at stake here. They're all set to the same scale for ease of comparison, but you can zoom in or out to study the sites.

Stoddert:

View Larger Map

Lafayette:

View Larger Map

Janney:

Remember that the Janney campus doesn't include the library building (upper right hand corner) and that the southern edge of the campus is sort of a lopsided V. To find the property line, start at the the driveway that runs between St. Ann's and the library and follow it down past the teachers' parking lot and then up again along the backyards of the neighboring houses on 42nd St.

View Larger Map

Oyster:

(The school is the square at the bottom left of the image; its playspace is along the top edge. The larger rectangle to its right was formerly campus land, but now belongs to a privately-owned corporate-suites type apartment building whose owners will soon enjoy a 20+ year property tax break because their PILOT was tied to the cost of repaying the school's construction bond rather than to the value of their own building.)

View Larger Map

Doug Wonderlic's "Viewpoint" piece on the RFP

2008-05-17T09:09:00.004-04:00

Tenley library project shouldn’t be slowed

THE NORTHWEST CURRENT
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008; page 11
by Doug Wonderlic

I urge library patrons and Janney Elementary School parents — both current and prospective — to insist on the immediate suspension of the public-private partnership effort for Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library and Janney. As reported by Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3E at its May 8 meeting, the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development is moving quickly to select a developer. After initially removing the library from the development mix, the deputy mayor’s office has now changed its mind and added the library back in.

Without a public-private partnership, the D.C. Public Library system has produced a library design praised by the Commission of Fine Arts as “a very strong concept,” “a building the whole neighborhood will be proud of” and “an extremely intelligent and wonderful design.” This creative design was achieved through true competition. More than two dozen library design architects submitted their qualifications for this project. The design competition was open to all of the best library architects in the country, not to development teams that could offer the best deal.

If the deputy mayor’s office does not interfere, construction of the new library will also involve true competition. This project will be put out to bid in the next few months based on 100 percent construction documents and will likely attract a large number of interested contractors, all bidding on exactly the same detailed design. The community has benefited and will continue to benefit from clarity and competition throughout planning, design and construction. As a result, the entire library process will inspire community confidence.

The library system has met all of its deadlines for planning and design, and it is on track to produce a beautiful and distinctive library by March 2010. Any delays now will add significant costs to construction and once again defer the day when our community enjoys its new library. The library site is small, but in the hands of its creative design team it can accommodate a library building that aesthetically and practically will become a symbol of Tenleytown and its love of learning. Library patrons and the Tenleytown community should not settle for anything less.

I recommend that Janney parents adopt the successful library model and insist on the same clarity and competition in producing school improvements. Only then will there be community confidence. To date, we have seen only a vague process. The city’s request-for-proposals process was intentionally vague and has become even murkier with constant changes in the requirements. The lack of clarity in the public-private partnership procedure has produced minimal competition in attracting developers. Compared to the process used by library officials, proposals from the three developers show little evidence that robust competition will be achieved in either the design or construction of school improvements, and little evidence that any of the developers will be able to complete their obligations in a timely manner.

Now is the time to stop the public-private partnership fiasco and allow Janney to proceed with proper planning. Currently, officials are pushing a hurried deal to take Janney’s land before Janney determines its students’ future needs. Proper planning involves an objective assessment of both facility and openspace needs for the school, determined through a formal educational specifications report. Such planning can lead to true competition in both the design and construction of school improvements

In conclusion, the Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library should be a stand-alone building, enabling it to serve as a much-needed visual symbol for the Tenleytown community. The costly and time-consuming public-private partnership effort should be suspended. The city should provide Janney Elementary with funds to prepare an educational specifications report. Then Janney should decide its own future without the pressure of an unnecessary and artificial deadline.

Doug Wonderlic is a retired facilities planner and a Tenleytown resident.

WBJ Article on DCPL's opposition to PPP

2008-05-04T11:20:00.004-04:00

Libraries held up by D.C.'s smart-growth ambitions
Washington Business Journal
Friday, May 2, 2008
by Jonathan O'Connell, Staff Reporter

In many respects, the Tenleytown and Benning neighborhoods couldn't be farther apart. The former is in wealthy upper Northwest, while the latter is in the second-poorest part of town in Northeast.

But the two communities have this in common: Neither has a permanent library. Libraries in both neighborhoods closed in December 2004 and were later demolished, replaced only by temporary facilities. Both also had their rebuilding plans delayed by ideas to leverage their prime locations near Metro stations and commercial corridors, plans intended to bring more vibrancy to those neighborhoods than libraries alone could.

In Tenleytown, the library has been moved in and out -- and now back in again -- to a larger project that would bring housing and a rebuilt Janney Elementary School to Wisconsin Avenue. On Benning Road, a private developer and a D.C. Council member say they think the library would make sense as part of a redeveloped shopping center.

Both suggestions threaten to further delay construction of the new 20,000-square-foot libraries, said John Hill, president of the D.C. Libraries Board of Trustees. The library system planned to break ground on both projects in July, but is just beginning to procure construction contracts, threatening a proposed March 2010 reopening date.

Those communities have been made to wait too long for new library services, Hill said, and the delays absorb money intended for other renovations. "If these projects get delayed significantly then it affects our capacity to begin other projects," he said.

The Tenley and Benning libraries are among four set to be rebuilt, along with branches in Anacostia and Shaw. All four are fully funded, at between $14.7 million and $16.1 million per branch, and $18 million has been set aside for the Georgetown library, which fell to fire in April 2007.

But Tenley and Benning have been caught up in the movement to build mixed-use projects at underutilized Metro stations. That ought be a priority, Hill acknowledged, which is why Neil Albert, deputy mayor for economic development, included the Tenley library in soliciting bids for a 3.6-acre parcel across from the street from the Tenleytown-American University Metro station. After three teams made proposals, Albert altered the solicitation to allow for an independently built library, but reversed course again recently in seeking final offers that include the library. No team has been chosen, although Albert had planned to make a selection in February. "I do understand the urgency, but I want to make sure we maximize that particular site," said Eric Scott, project manager.

On Benning Road, developer D.C.-based City Interests LLC has proposed adding 10,000 square feet to the new library and moving it into a redeveloped East River Park shopping center -- a plan that Councilwoman Yvette Alexander, D-Ward 7, said she likes, even though it would probably further delay that library for another six months. "My preference would be to optimize the design of the library by incorporating it with the development," Alexander said.

Hill, also president of the Federal City Council, and Ginnie Cooper, chief librarian, want shovels in the ground. Hill said the library board will look at building its Tenley library in a way that allows housing to be added on top later, once the deputy mayor selects a development plan. Otherwise, he said the delays mean the project "is going to take much, much longer."

"We're not going to stop moving because an individual council member tells us we should slow down or we should stop," Hill said. "That's not any kind of due process."

"We're on a pretty good site now," Cooper said of the library's Benning parcel. "It's an attractive site, and we are hoping to stay there."

E-mail: joconnell@bizjournals.com Phone: 703/258-0835

© American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.

What Cheh Did Wrong

2008-04-01T13:48:00.007-04:00

After ANC 3F Commissioner Frank Winstead youtubed a portion of the DC Council's Oversight Hearings on the Ward 3 ANCs, featuring Mary Cheh trying (unsuccessfully) to browbeat ANC 3E Commissioner Anne Sullivan into submission, there's been some online discussion suggesting Sullivan had it coming, given her own critique of Cheh's behavior with respect to the Tenleytown RFP.

One problem with the youtube clip is that while viewers can clearly see Cheh acting like a bully, they are left with no real basis for judging whether or not Cheh has been falsely accused of dereliction of duty.

As one Cheh defender summed it up, the charge is: “that Ms. Cheh has somehow colluded backhandedly with private developers to commandeer valuable public property, then ram an unwanted and unneeded project down the throats of a community who solidly oppose it.”

Yup, that's basically on target. To me, the crucial issues are cronyism and a betrayal of the public trust. Councilmember Cheh became a supporter of this project without paying much, if any, attention to the underlying facilities issues. And with each new problem that emerged as the proposal circulated more widely, Cheh’s approach was to step on the accelerator rather than the brakes. As she learned more, she never stopped to reconsider her support.

A few examples:

1) two days after learning from DCPS’s facilities people that Roadside’s proposal was premised on a gross underestimation of Janney’s facilities needs, Cheh wrote a letter to the mayor urging him to pursue such a project.

2) After ANC 3E’s special committee distributed notes of a meeting in which a senior economist at OCFO questioned the wisdom of a public-private redevelopment approach at this site, indicating that it would increase costs, delay the library, and be unlikely to expedite the school’s modernization, Cheh’s chief-of-staff tried to get the official to disavow or qualify his remarks. Although her claim was that the committee's discussion was based on information that was too hypothetical, CM Cheh herself used the exact same developer-provided information to claim that the Roadside's proposal would extract $16 million dollars of value from the land at this site.

3) When many of the written submissions sent to her by members of her taskforce (on behalf of the community organizations they represented) came back less than enthusiastic about the idea, Cheh failed to pass them on to decisionmakers, as promised. Instead, two days after receiving this input she urged DMPED to issue an RFP as soon as possible. Two weeks later, when asked to provide DMPED with names of community members who should be invited to provide public input on the contents of the RFP, she offered the names of six people representing only three community groups — Janney, Ward 3 Vision, and the condo board from the Roadside project across the street — all of whom were boosters of the project. Major stakeholders such as the Friends of the Library, St. Ann’s Church and other abutting property owners, not to mention established community groups like Tenleytown Neighbors Association and Tenleytown Historical Society, didn’t make Cheh’s list.

By cronyism, I mean friends doing friends favors. The crucial connection here is between Councilmember Cheh and Roadside Vice President Susan Linsky. Linsky, then a DMPED official, was part of the group of development-oriented professionals who endeavored to play kingmaker in the Ward 3 race. They chose Cheh as their candidate. Linsky then volunteered her services to the campaign, during both the primary and the general election and appeared to be one of Cheh’s most senior and trusted advisors. Linsky left DC government at the end of October 2006. By Linsky’s account, her close relationship with Cheh continued even after the election and her move to Roadside. In January of 2007 Linsky wrote David Jannarone (DMPED’s new Director of Development and an ex-Roadside employee) that “I continue to mentor Mary and her staff” as they transition into office.

Jannarone, patching ex-bosses Armond Spikell and Richard Lake into their conversation, responded to Linsky’s E-mail by telling Roadside that the best way to get DMPED involved in the Janney/Tenley library project would be for the community and the councilmember to invite them in. Apparently, his advice was immediately followed. A week after the exchange, Jannarone received an e-mail from a community member inviting him to a meeting about the Roadside project and indicating that Spikell had provided her with Jannarone’s name and contact info.

For those interested in a quid pro quo analysis, the timing of Roadside’s contributions to Cheh’s campaign fund and her constituent services fund is suggestive. Roadside’s first two contributions to Cheh’s campaign (one from the corporation, one from Roadside principal and MD resident Richard Lake) were made during the second week of November 2006 -- i.e. only after Cheh’s victory in the general election. Obviously, contributions made at this stage aren’t motivated by a desire to influence the outcome of an election; their most likely function is to curry favor with the new officeholder. Then in December 2006, even before she took office, Cheh expressed to Chief Librarian Ginnie Cooper her desire to see a mixed-use project at the Tenley-Friendship library site. At this point, Roadside was the only developer expressing an interest in such a project.

The third contribution was made on May 31, 2007, when Roadside donated to Cheh’s constituent services fund. A week later, Cheh wrote to the Mayor in support of a public-private partnership at the Janney/Tenley library site, praising Roadside’s proposal and providing Roadside (but not the rest of the community) with a copy of that letter. That letter’s existence remained a secret from the community until an ANC 3E committee member happened to attend a Library Trustees facilities meeting where Linsky invoked it as evidence that there was widespread support in the neighborhood for Roadside’s proposal. In fact, Cheh did not even divulge the letter's existence when she solicited feedback from her taskforce, some six weeks after urging the Mayor to pursue the project.

In sum, I think that Cheh did a much better job of representing Roadside’s interests than the community’s interests in this process. She was more concerned with enabling private development than with ensuring that our community’s public facilities needs were met. She was more concerned with getting her way than with ensuring that decisionmaking involving public lands emerges from a transparent, well-defined, and standards-driven process. This land should never have been offered for sale without a surplusing decision. But it was put on the auction block because CM Cheh was eager to “cut ribbons” and to please her friends and allies — not because anyone made a rational decision that a public-private venture was the best way to modernize and expand our school and our library.

Cheh’s supporters make two arguments in defense of her actions, neither of which strikes me as very persuasive. The first is that Cheh’s support for this project is entirely consistent with her oft-expressed commitment to smart growth. On one level, I’m certainly willing to believe that Cheh’s position on this project has been driven by ideology. Cheh has consistently espoused a very simplistic version of “smart growth” which basically boils down to “if there is a Metrorail station, then maximize residential density.” This position makes her popular with developers, of course, but I don’t assume that her support for this project (or other similar ones) was bought per se. At any rate, support for a concept doesn’t justify Cheh’s refusal to deal with and her attempts to suppress the very real concerns raised by the community about the project’s shortcomings.

Secondly, the fact that Cheh’s June 6th letter expressed a preference for competitive bidding is, for me, not particularly relevant. As Commissioner Sullivan’s testimony points out, the issue is whether the land should have been put on the auction block at all. That was the major hurdle that Roadside needed to clear, and Cheh’s letter was essential to their success in doing so.

The fact that Cheh didn’t ask Fenty to award a no-bid contract for Roadside just means that sometimes friends ask for things that are unreasonable, so you do what you can for them and let them do the rest themselves. And, frankly, it has been clear throughout these discussions that any competitive bidding process would involve a very uneven playing field tilted in Roadside’s favor. They had a major head start, information no one else had, and a former employee running the show. And remember, a month later, when another crony’s interests were served by a no-bid contract for a similar deal in the West End, Cheh voted for it. See http://ocf.dc.gov/pdf_files/cfd/OCF%20FI2007-101_95.pdf for details on Eastbanc VP Joe Sternlieb’s role in Cheh’s campaign. Her Roadside letter didn’t rule out a similar approach for Tenleytown, though the outrage that resulted from the West End deal made such an outcome politically impossible.

As for suggestions that Commissioner Sullivan was out of line for criticizing Councilmember Cheh, I have to say that I’m very pleased to be represented by ANC Commissioners who see their role as that of advisors rather than sycophants. And I hope to be represented by a Councilmember who sees her role as serving the public interest rather than handing out favors to courtiers. Yes, it’s regrettable and counter-productive when the relationships between ANC Commissioners and the Ward Councilmember become this antagonistic. But it doesn’t follow that the way to prevent that outcome is for ANCs to roll over and play dead. Maybe it’s time for our novice Councilmember to recognize that the ANCs can function as a valuable resource for providing insight into the concerns of various neighborhoods within the Ward. That’s what they’re there for.

Call to Action : Advice for Letter-Writers

2008-03-26T08:30:00.003-04:00

The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) has indicated that all comments on the public-private project should be sent by e-mail to tenleytown@dc.gov. I suggest that you also send your comments to key decision-makers in both the executive and legislative branches, as well as a courtesy copy to ANC Special Committee Chair Anne Sullivan.

E-mail addresses are provided below. Based on recent experience, I have also provided some letter-writing tips designed to ensure that your statement will not be mischaracterized. And because DMPED seems to count letters rather than signatures, I’d encourage each adult member of your household to send a separate e-mail message, ideally from a separate e-mail account.

LETTER-WRITING TIPS

Letters can be short. Three paragraphs, each with a couple of sentences or bullet points, works well.

The subject header should clearly indicate the issue you’re writing on – e.g. “Tenleytown PPP.”

Your first paragraph should clearly state your stance on the Fenty administration’s proposed public-private redevelopment of the Janney/Tenley Library land. To avoid misclassification, if your position is that you are opposed to this approach, then it is imperative to have the word “oppose” somewhere in the letter’s opening sentence. It is equally important not to have the word “support” (regardless of what you say you’re supporting) anywhere in the first paragraph. Politicians and their staffers are not always close readers of texts! This paragraph might also include some background information about you and your stake in this project or this community – e.g. how long you have lived in DC (or in Tenleytown or Friendship Heights) and what has motivated you to express an interest in this particular project/controversy (e.g. I'm a Janney parent, library user, neighboring homeowner).

The second paragraph can simply elaborate on the concerns expressed in the first paragraph or briefly enumerate a number of concerns. If you would like to review or fact-check information about the various proposals, http://www.anc3e.org/minutes.html is a good resource. The developers’ presentations are all there, as are the ANC’s critiques. But there’s no need to do research to write a letter. The recipients are more interested in gauging the extent and intensity of public opposition than in your reasoning.

In the third paragraph, provide an action item. Tell the recipient what you want him or her to do (or not to do). One thing to think about in this context is if you are asking the Mayor (or other decisionmaker) to reject all three current offers, then what do you want to happen next? If you do not want the library project re-incorporated into a new Solicitation of Offers, now is the time to say so.

Your signature block should include your full name as well as your address.

E-mail addresses:

To be considered by DMPED, your letter must be emailed to tenleytown@dc.gov. DMPED’s deadline for public comments is April 9th. In any event, sooner is better than later. As previously suggested, it also would be extremely useful to send your comments to the mayor, other key executive-branch decision-makers, and several Councilmembers, with a courtesy copy to the ANC Special Committee. Here’s a complete list of the relevant addresses you can cut and paste: tenleytown@dc.gov, adrian.fenty@dc.gov, mayor@dc.gov, neil.albert@dc.gov, ginnie.cooper@dc.gov, michelle.rhee@dc.gov, mcheh@dccouncil.us, vgray@dccouncil.us,

schwartzc@dccouncil.us, kbrown@dccouncil.us, hthomas@dccouncil.us, pmendelson@dccouncil.us, dcatania@dccouncil.us, acsullivan@starpower.net,
If you’d like to be more selective (and/or to customize your comments), here is the relevant contact information for specific officeholders:

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty: adrian.fenty@dc.gov and/or mayor@dc.gov
Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Neil Albert: neil.albert@dc.gov
Chief Librarian Ginnie Cooper: ginnie.cooper@dc.gov
DCPS Chancellor Michelle Rhee: michelle.rhee@dc.gov
Council Chairman Vincent Gray: vgray@dccouncil.us
At-Large Councilmember Carol Schwartz (chair of the committee that handles surplussing decisions): schwartzc@dccouncil.us
At-Large Councilmember Kwame R. Brown (chair of the Council’s Economic Development committee): kbrown@dccouncil.us
Ward 3 Councilmember Mary M. Cheh: mcheh@dccouncil.us

Councilmember Harry “Tommy” Thomas (chair of the committee on Libraries): hthomas@dccouncil.us

At-Large Councilmember David Catania: dcatania@dccouncil.us

At-Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson: pmendelson@dccouncil.us

ANC 3E Special Committee Chair Anne Sullivan: acsullivan@starpower.net

Janney SIT urges rejection of all three offers

2008-03-26T08:28:00.006-04:00

Their letter to DMPED is available at http://www.janneyschool.org/PTASITPPP/Library%20development/sitresponseto3proposals-march2008.html. This means that a consensus has emerged within the community -- neither the ANC nor the School wants to see any of these projects built. Hopefully, this will be enough to convince Mayor Fenty to pull the plug on this RFP. At the February meeting of the Tenleytown Neighbors Association (TNA), Fenty pledged that he would listen to the community once it spoke with a united voice.

Where consensus breaks down (perhaps even within the SIT, judging from the wording of the letter) is whether the next step should be a decision that the Office of Public Education Facilities Modernization (headed by Allen Lew of stadium fame) will be responsible for the Janney project (ideally on an earlier timetable than previously announced) or whether the whole RFP process should be re-started and done right this time with well-defined limits on acceptable private development on the site and/or the re-inclusion of the library project and land.

Not surprisingly, I'm strongly in favor of the OPEFM option.

Truth is, we've already explored the PPP-with-the-library-in-the-mix option. One of the three current proposals (LCOR's) is based on that scenario, and it was rejected by both the SIT and the ANC. The notion that including the library's land solves the problem is a mirage. To the extent that Roadside's original ("unsolicited") offer looked more acceptable than the post-RFP proposals, that's primarily because its site plan was predicated on a gross underestimation of Janney's *interior* facilities needs (it contemplated a 10,000 - 13,000 SF addition rather than the required 39,000 SF). In short, it left more playground space because it failed to build the necessary classrooms.

And at this point the costs of doing the RFP are much greater than they would have been (or maybe then they appeared to be) last summer when DMPED originally decided to explore the PPP option. The library is substantially further along (and delaying its construction will be costly). Also, as this round of submissions demonstrated, a mixed-use project is likely to take 4-5 years to complete -- once a proposal is accepted. That means that a new PPP is unlikely to speed up Janney's modernization. And the mixed-use project will be much more disruptive to both the Janney and St. Ann's campuses than consecutive library and school modernization projects would be.

So what would be the benefit of trying this again? The school gains nothing compared to an OPEFM modernization (no more land to work with, no faster timetable) and the library loses (its re-opening would be delayed, its design compromised, and its construction costs increased). By now, we've thoroughly explored the PPP options at this site. Remember, this is the second time around. In 2003 Janney looked at a residental PPP and DCPL investigated the possibility of a mixed-use library project -- both ideas were ultimately rejected. It's time to move on. The concept is clearly more attractive than the reality.

I wish that DMPED had done a better RFP in the first place because then its myriad screw-ups wouldn't leave some people convinced that there's some brilliant-yet-undiscovered PPP that could still happen at this site. In fact, I think that a better process would have shown from the beginning that, despite its Metro-accessibility, the size and layout of this site and our public facilities requirements leave no room for economically viable private residential development.

I've given up predicting what DC government will do. But, at a minimum, if a new RFP is to be issued, I hope that it will be based on a "plan first" model in which fairly comprehensive site-planning for the school precedes any solicitation of offers and in which the solicitation itself defines and limits the acceptable scale and location of private development on the site. Conducting another "fishing expedition" would be a waste of everyone's time.

Again, even if this isn't your neighborhood, I urge you to follow what's happening at Tenleytown. The privatization of public land over the strong objections of the local citizenry is a real and growing problem under the Fenty Administration.

Special Committee Report on RFP Submissions

2008-03-16T09:12:00.003-04:00

ANC 3E SPECIAL COMMITTEE REPORT ON RFP SUBMISSIONS

The analysis in this report is based developers’ presentations at DMPED’s February 28th meeting (and subsequent review of those presentations, which each developer made available to us in electronic form) as well as written and oral responses from all three developers to a set of questions we sent to each regarding project specifications. DMPED has refused to make public any part of the developers’ submissions in response to the RFP, despite repeated requests from the ANC and other community members.

Based on the evidence available to us, we feel strongly that the community’s interest would be better served by leaving the modernization of Janney School in the hands of DCPS rather than by adopting any of the three proposals submitted.

• All three proposals involve the sacrifice of campus land for non-educational use.

• None of the three provides all of the exterior program space mandated by DCPS’s current educational specifications for an elementary school campus of 550 students. Not only is the multi-purpose PE playing field miniaturized in these proposals, but children are also deprived of the playground (including hardscape) space to which they are entitled and which could easily be provided on campus if land were not devoted to non-educational uses. The imminent closure of many other DCPS elementary schools is likely to increase enrollment pressure at Janney and we’ve previously seen recently modernized schools (e.g. Oyster) instantly overcrowded. Under the circumstances, voluntarily accepting fewer facilities than DCPS’s educational specifications envision for an elementary school of 550 students strikes us as foolhardy.

• None of the proposals offers a realistic assurance of speeding up the school’s modernization and each will be significantly more disruptive to the education of students at both Janney and St. Ann’s than a stand-alone school modernization project would be.

• While DMPED has deprived us of access to the financial details that would enable us to assess and compare the exact costs associated with each project, the facts that the RFP offered DCPS’s capital funding for Janney’s modernization to the winning development team (and none seems likely to turn $20+ million down!) and that two of the three teams have explicitly referenced the use of PILOT financing, suggest that there will be no cost savings to the city if a public-private venture is used to redevelop this site. On the contrary, it seems most likely that the level of public subsidization for this project would be increased.

We therefore urge the ANC to endorse the “no PPP” option, and to continue to push for the soonest possible modernization and expansion of Janney’s facilities by OPEFM.

Because the ANC Commissioners may wish to express preferences among, or flag issues related to, the various responses to the RFP, we felt we should include some comments on the comparative merits of the three proposals/teams, in addition to our more general recommendation.

UniDev/See Forever:

Basically, there is almost nothing in this project for either Janney School or Tenley-Friendship Library – not even fair-market compensation for their loss of land. UniDev’s goal is simply to build affordable housing on public land. That’s a laudable goal, but we don’t see why it must be pursued at the expense of playground and sports facilities for DCPS’s most overcrowded elementary school campus.

Roadside/Smoot:

This proposal appears to us to involve a serious element of “false advertising” designed to garner community support at the expense of a clear understanding of what is being consented to. For example, this team holds out the prospect that Janney will have a new addition by September 2010 and that the children can remain on campus throughout all phases of construction. We find the first claim non-credible. Both other teams estimate that there will be two years of approvals and predevelopment work before ground can be broken on this project. And Roadside’s own timeline calculations are based on indisputably fictional premises (unless they were actually awarded the deal last week and have already filed a PUD application!) as well as on contingencies that seem quite unlikely (e.g. that funds for the school’s construction will be made available to them in 2009 rather than in 2013, as the RFP specifies).

Our swing space concerns stem from comparing Roadside’s timeline with its site plans and seeing that, for a substantial portion of two academic years, Janney’s historic building would be flanked by construction on both sides, at a time when the demountables and teacher parking lot would necessarily still be in use. Trapped between two construction sites, with little or no land available for outdoor play, students will find it very difficult to learn in this environment and teachers will find it quite challenging to teach.

The analogy to Smoot’s “swing-in-place” experience at Key is specious. Key’s construction project was half the size of what Janney’s modernization/expansion will be, it took place on a campus almost as large (3.17 vs. 3.29 acres), and it involved 285 fewer children. And, of course, there was no residential building being constructed on Key’s campus while the school was being rebuilt. For what it’s worth, we do believe that a swing-in-place strategy would be possible if Janney’s modernization were the only construction project on campus and that DCPS will pursue such a strategy if that is the case.

Secondly, for a number of reasons, the O Street Market project raises serious concerns about Roadside’s ability to deliver on a project of this complexity. Roadside acquired site control of O Street Market in 2001, but still hasn’t broken ground there. At different points, its plans were shot down by the Historic Preservation Review Board and by the Zoning Commission, two agencies whose approval will also be needed for the Janney project. Clearly, not all of the circumstances that have contributed to the slow progress at O Street Market are Roadside’s fault (e.g. a freak snowstorm and a grocery chain takeover also played a role), but, equally clearly, Roadside significantly overestimated its own ability to win approvals and underestimated how long it would take to get things done, and the Shaw community has suffered as a result.

While we’re happy to see that the fortunes of the O Street Market project are rapidly improving (HPRB approval has been granted and ZC approval seems within reach, although $40 million in TIF financing still looks iffy at this point), we have serious concerns about whether Roadside has the capacity to take the lead on two major projects of this complexity simultaneously. They lacked even the manpower to send representatives to both events when a separate meeting for each project was scheduled on the same night last week. Because the O Street project has been delayed for so long, there will be significant pressure to move forward quickly once it finally does get funded and approved. The Tenleytown project could easily become the lower priority if conflicts were to arise.

LCOR:

We have no real qualms about LCOR’s ability to undertake and complete this kind of project. And we believe that their proposal takes a relatively realistic and responsible approach to the project presented in the original RFP. But we also think that it is precisely this realism – i.e. about how much housing would have to be built to make the deal economically worthwhile, about where traffic should be routed, about how much field and play land would be lost, about how long it will take to redevelop the site and whether Janney students should be relocated to swing space during some phases of the construction – that makes its proposal less than appealing even to those community members who have eagerly advocated a public-private venture at this location.

The Oyster experience also leads us to flag an issue regarding the purported economic benefits of a joint public-private redevelopment of this land. To put it bluntly, LCOR does a much better job at negotiating than DC government does. The PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) arrangement for Oyster may well turn out to involve a 20 year tax break for the owner of that apartment building. The ordinary property tax liability is edging very close to the agreed-upon PILOT payment (which will soon function as a cap) and may surpass the PILOT amount even before DC government has collected enough additional revenue from it to cover the fair market value of the public land sold!

Moreover, from an income tax standpoint, the apartment building that consumed virtually all of Oyster’s exterior space is most likely a low-performer. It was sold to a corporate housing provider and its tenant base includes many sojourners who are legal residents of tax jurisdictions other than DC. The obvious analogy in our neighborhood would be if a rental building at the Wisconsin & Albemarle site were to become a literal or de facto off-campus dorm for AU students, over 90% of whom are not legal residents of DC and who typically have low incomes (but parents able to afford high rents, especially when units are shared). This isn’t an issue that arises only in the context of LCOR’s proposal – Roadside plans to build apartments as well and both companies seem more likely to sell the building than to manage it long-term. Odds are, they won’t have the luxury of choosing their buyer or of determining who rents the units.

Finally, there’s the issue of the library. Again, this is not an issue that is unique to LCOR, since each development team has indicated that it would be delighted to see the library land thrown back into the project. But LCOR’s proposal raises the question most saliently, because there seems to be a real possibility that LCOR will withdraw from the project unless the library land is made available. Both in the press and in our community meeting, LCOR indicated that they weren’t sure that a project involving only the school’s land would be economically feasible. And they did not revise their design to propose such a project. By contrast, both Roadside’s and UniDev’s current plans assume a stand-alone library – albeit not the particular library (i.e. footprint, location, height) that DCPL plans to build. Accepting either of those offers would, therefore, require some change in plans – but the change could be in the residential plans rather than the library plans.

So the questions remain as to whether DCPL’s current plans for a stand-alone branch should (or will – these are different issues) be derailed once again to accommodate mixed-use development on this site. We hope not -- especially since it seems likely that the best chance of meeting Janney’s facilities needs and expediting its modernization would be to have OPEFM undertake the project and to devote the entire campus to school facilities rather than additional uses.

When this discussion began, community interest in a public-private venture was premised on the notion that allowing private development on this public land might be worthwhile if it enabled the city to provide better public facilities. Yet now we find ourselves at the point where we’re being told that it’s not enough to sacrifice our school’s facilities needs to make private development possible at this site – we must sacrifice our library as well, by delaying its reconstruction and compromising its exciting design. To our minds, that’s a real perversion of civic priorities.

The public-private redevelopment option for this site has now been thoroughly explored. And the results are in -- it should be rejected.

Where Community Input fits in this "Model Process"

2008-03-16T08:32:00.006-04:00

Well, the "community meeting" sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) was even worse than their format led me to expect. They got off to a good start by announcing that they were providing only 8 days for public comment. And, yet again, the deadline they imposed seemed deliberately chosen to preclude official action on the part of the affected ANCs. Project Manager Eric Scott promised that they would put copies of the developers' public presentations up on the web the next day, but that didn't happen. After a few days of lobbying, Neil Albert agreed to extend the comment period to the more customary 30 days. But, still the powerpoints didn't appear online, so the ANC asked for 30 days from the date of posting. Arguably, it took testimony at a Council oversight hearing to get them posted and then they went up without announcement and on a different website than the one previously established for community contact on this project.

But back to February 28th. So here we had the spectacle of a community meeting when the community wasn't entitled to speak and where no written information about these complex projects was made available before or during the meeting. The lethargy in the audience was palpable -- and yet inscrutable. There were no displays of enthusiasm for any of the proposals but no expressions of disapproval either. In short, no one in the roon knew what other people were thinking and that's exactly what DMPED had in mind. Comments are to be submitted via email -- i.e. privately. And then DMPED will represent public opinion as supporting whatever DMPED wants to do.

The one argument that could have been made for DMPED exerting such tight control over information in this context would have been that because this was the first time the public would see these designs, it was important to ensure that complete, coherent, and comparable information was presented and that developers could not present misleading accounts about what they could accomplish on the site and when.

But given both the character of the restrictions (how can anyone make an informed judgment regarding which deal is the best or whether any of these deals is worthwhile without seeing the bottom line?) and their implementation, it's clear that what DMPED is trying to censor is hard truths rather than seductive fictions.

Roadside, whose unsolicited proposal prompted this RFP, offered a timeline that claimed that it would have a 120-150 unit condo building with a couple of levels of underground parking built by July 2010. This despite the fact that the land hasn't been surplussed, Roadside hasn't been awarded the PPP, the project hasn't been designed yet, and it will necessarily involve a PUD and/or a map amendment. And that's before we get to (censored) questions of financing. When the powerpoint presentations finally did go up, it took a magnifying glass (virtual or literal) to see that Roadside's calculations were based on obvious fictions. They planned, for example, to be given the deal a week later (on the day the comment period would have ended!) and to file their PUD application the Monday thereafter. Council approval of any sort wasn't in their plans, and they assumed DCPS would hand over funding for the school modernization project 4 years earlier than the RFP indicated. All this fine print was illegible in their presentation, of course -- but the conclusion it led up to was in a large boldfaced font. And this was a presentation the Deputy Mayor's office pre-cleared?!

What to do? ANC 3E's special committee on this project (of which I'm a member) decided we'd hold our own uncensored community meeting the next week. We invited all the developers and posed them a series of basic questions about project specs in advance. Two of the three participated (Roadside had a prior engagement) and the meeting fell like a minor vindication of democracy. It was a friendly and quite informative discussion which required no more policing than asking people to form a line to ask questions and periodically reminding them of the time. Alas, no representative from DMPED (or any other part of DC government for that matter) was present to witness the spectacle.

As the result of the March 6th meeting (and Roadside's submission of written answers to our question on March 12th), the community now has access to much more information about each proposal. But the problem is that it's all self-reporting on the part of the developers because DMPED ignored the ANC's recommendations that the RFP provide for expert vetting of finances and construction timelines by OCFO and OPEFM (Allen Lew's department). And, of course, DCPS's plans still haven't been presented.

While the Fenty Administration has repeatedly claimed that "none of the above" is always an option with respect to this RFP, it's not providing (or seeking) the information necessary to determine whether a PPP (which will, in any event, use DCPS's already budgeted capital funding to modernize and enlarge Janney) offers any advantage over simply moving Janney up in the queue to address its overcrowding.

I really hope that people outside our neighborhood will pay attention to what's happening here. This project is supposed to be a model for the rest of the city and, if that's true, we're all in trouble. DMPED is eager to make deals -- not plans -- and is willing to run roughshod over communities that resist. What's really perverse is that DMPED doesn't seem to know or care whether the deals it's so eager to make are even good ones. And DCPS seems to be showing similar proclivities. Who knows what will be left of public land, public schools, and public debate a few years from now if we keep headed in the current direction?

For those interested in the specifics of the proposals, the three Developer presentations from February 28th, the March 6th Meeting notes, and a table comparing the project specs for each proposal are all available at http://www.anc3e.org/minutes.html.

Community Meeting Format

2008-02-25T12:37:00.004-05:00

Not a good sign when DMPED announces it will censor both developers and community members. Note not only the ban on presenting financial information (which is crucial to making an informed decision about which offer is the best and whether any PPP is better than no PPP) but also the fact that developers must pre-submit their presentations to DMPED for approval. Frankly, it looks like DMPED sees candid exchanges between developers and the community as a threat to the success of this project. Let's hope this isn't the "model process" DMPED plans to use citywide.

Tenley-Friendship Library/Janney Elementary School Redevelopment
Developer Presentations to the Community
Format for the Public Meeting

Date: February 28, 2008

Location: Janney Elementary School

Time: 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm

Setup & Open House: 6:00 - 6:30 pm

All development teams should arrive no later than 6:00 pm to allow sufficient time to load their PowerPoint presentations and display their presentation boards for public viewing in the area designated by DMPED.

Equipment: All development teams should bring their own presentation easels and laptops for their PowerPoint presentations – there is a limit to four easels per team. DMPED will arrange for a projector, and projections screen. In case of any technical difficulty, all development teams should bring a copy of their PowerPoint presentation on a USB flash drive that can be transferred to a laptop before the meeting.

Presentation Content: Development teams should address the following areas in their presentations:

Qualifications and Experience of Developer
Project Vision and Development Approach
Community Benefits, Including CBE Commitment, Stakeholder Engagement, and Community Outreach.

The Presentations should not include any information regarding the total development costs, project financial structuring or other financial information.

Opening Remarks: 6:30 pm – 6:40 pm
Opening remarks by DMPED

Presentation Format: Each development team will have 20 minutes to present. Each team will be a given a one minute notice before the expiration of the presentation. The order of the presentation will be determined randomly prior to the community meeting.

6:40pm – 6:45 pm

Moderator will provide an introduction of the Tenley-Janney project including the development area, current uses and project timing. Moderator will also provide the guidelines for the evening.

6:45pm – 6:55pm: Library presentation on the future of the Tenley Library, timing and design.
5 minute break for set-up

7:00 pm – 7:20 pm: Team 1
5 minute break for set-up

7:25 pm – 7:45 pm: Team 2
5 minute break for set-up

7:50 pm – 8:10 pm: Team 3

Presentation Guidelines & Rules: A maximum of two team members will be allowed to present. However, multiple team members will be allowed to respond during the question and answer period. Each development team is encouraged to bring no more than 10 team members to engage the community at the conclusion of the event.

All presentations must be limited to no greater than 15 slides.

All presentations must be submitted to DMPED for final review by 5:00 pm on February 27, 2008.

No videos or audio enhancements will be allowed during your presentation. Handouts are not allowed during your presentation.

Display boards should not be used during your presentation. However we are requesting that all teams display their boards in the lobby of the venue.

Q & A Period: 8:10 pm – 9:00 pm

Each team is expected to field questions from the community. Index cards will be provided to the public for written comments or questions. The moderator, with assistance from DMPED staff will direct all questions to the appropriate development teams. DMPED will reserve the right to screen questions that are inappropriate or off-topic. Development teams will not be allowed to ask questions to other development teams.

Team Member Attendance: A maximum of two team members will be allowed to present. However, multiple team members will be allowed to respond during the question and answer period. Each development team is encouraged to bring no more than 10 team members to engage the community at the conclusion of the event.

New Infomation: Development teams shall not present new information to the community not originally submitted in the response to the solicitation of offers. New information may not be presented during presentation or during the question and answer period.

Presentations On the Web: All development teams will agree to allow DMPED to display their community presentation on the Tenley-Janney Blog, as well as the DMPED website beginning February 29, 2008. Online presentations will be used for the community to provide additional feedback for each proposal.

Ed Cowan's piece on the RFP Amendments

2008-02-12T12:02:00.000-05:00

To: DC Voters
From: Edward Cowan
February 7, 2008

Tenley Library Rebuild on Faster Track

Construction of a new Tenley-Friendship branch of the DC Public Library has been severed from the proposed remodeling of the Janney Elementary School. As a result, it looks like ground-breaking for the new library will occur in late summer or autumn, with March 2010 a target date for opening the building to the public.

The Tenley branch was closed as antiquated and in need of replacement at the end of 2004. An initial design for a new branch, although paid for by DC Public Library, was rejected, one reason that the replacement process has dragged on so long.

Now, the Public Library’s director, Ginnie Cooper, her staff and their architects are working on a new design and are optimistic that the building will be finished about two years from now. Allow some weeks for installing books, computers and materials and an opening towards the end of March looks possible, DCPL reckons.

Cooper and senior members of the Library’s Board of Trustees and staff met with the deputy mayor for economic development and planning, Neil Albert, in mid-January. Cooper brought with her the chairman of the board, John W. Hill, and Richard H. Levy, chairman of the DCPL construction committee. As Albert knew, both men are well connected politically.

Albert, reminded of community frustration with the Tenley branch’s being closed so long, agreed to sever the library from the Janney project so that it could be rebuilt with less delay. Albert’s office had left open such a split in its request for bids, although it also contemplated—and was thought to lean towards—joint development, as originally proposed by the Roadside Development group.

The library sits on the southwest corner of Albemarle Street and Wisconsin Avenue NW. The school is its immediate neighbor to the west, on Albemarle Street. Roadside contemplated layering condo units on top of the library, with parking under the Janney soccer field.

That entangled the library project in many issues, such as “affordable” housing units, underground parking and shrinkage or relocation of the soccer field. Inevitably, some neighbors, including Saint Ann’s Church, voiced objections.

Sorting all that out could take a couple of years, delaying construction of the new library. Such delay now seems to be avoided. Eric Scott, a project manager for Neil Albert, posted on the Web on Monday a declaration that any proposal for Janney must contemplate “independent development of the Friendship Library site. Any proposal that include[s] a development program that integrates the Library within the larger redevelopment footprint will no longer be considered responsive.” (See http://tenley-janney.blogspot.com.)

The Public Library expects to finish the design by May. It is already looking for a construction manager, preparatory to inviting bids. It announced in December that it expected ground-breaking to occur in September. Officials said that could occur as early as August, or might slip to October.

The budget for the branch is $14,500,000, including books, equipment and materials. “We think that it is sufficient,” Cooper said, “to build the library that we want to give the community.”

A public meeting to show the design to Tenley library patrons and neighbors is scheduled for April 9 at 6 p.m. at the interim library, 4200 Wisconsin Avenue.

ANC 3E Special Committee's Letter to DC Auditor

2008-02-11T19:14:00.000-05:00

Ms. Deborah K. Nichols
Auditor District of Columbia
717 14th Street, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

February 4, 2008

Dear Ms. Nichols –

We are writing to request that your office conduct an investigation into the question of how the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (“DMPED”) made the decision to issue an RFP offering opportunities for private development on the campus of the Tenley-Friendship Library and the Bernard T. Janney Elementary School, located on Wisconsin Avenue at Albemarle Street (“the Tenleytown project”).

We believe that such an investigation will demonstrate that (a) the Director of Development violated conflict-of-interest guidelines, (b) the concentration of power over public lands in the hands of the Mayor (and the Mayor’s delegation of that power to DMPED) has left individual executive agencies unable to defend their own facilities needs, (c) as a result, such needs are being sacrificed in order to make public land available for private development, and (d) DMPED’s approach to the disposition of public lands effectively excludes both the ANCs and the Council of the District of Columbia from a meaningful role in such decisions.

We further believe that what has happened in Tenleytown is not an aberration, but is symptomatic of problems that are occurring citywide as the Fenty Administration approaches public land issues in a variety of contexts. The absence of Council oversight and the failure to establish consistent standards and procedures for public land dispositions have created a situation in which the undisclosed actions of a few well-positioned individuals can determine whether public land is lost to private uses.

We are requesting that you undertake this investigation as part of your mandate to provide the information necessary to put the Council in a better position to exercise oversight of executive agencies. The stewardship of public lands is a crucial responsibility of local governments – and it is as important to the District’s long-term financial health as ensuring that tax revenues are properly spent and accounted for. That said, public lands are not simply revenue sources to be liquidated whenever an opportunity presents itself. These lands are entrusted to the care of the Council and the Mayor whose duty is to use them in ways that protect not only the interests of the citizens of the District of Columbia today, but the interests of future generations of DC residents.

We have attached a brief summary of our causes for concern about how DMPED has acted in the Tenleytown case. It is based both on personal experience and on documents we have received to date in response to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act. Because DMPED has withheld hundreds of additional documents based on privilege claims, we have concluded that a full-scale investigation by an agency with the power to subpoena documents and take testimony under oath will be necessary if a more complete picture of DMPED’s decision-making process in this matter is to emerge.

We look forward to hearing your response to our request. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance in this matter. We hope for and expect the opportunity to provide additional testimony should you decide to pursue this inquiry.

Sincerely,

Anne C. Sullivan
ANC Commissioner for 3E05
and Chair of ANC 3E’s Special Committee on the Tenley-Friendship Library/Janney School Proposal

Daniel N. Carozza
Community Representative
ANC 3E Special Committee

Suzette M. Hemberger
Community Representative
ANC 3E Special Committee

Attachments: “Causes for Concern”
supporting documents

Causes for Concern

2008-02-11T19:02:00.000-05:00

CAUSES FOR CONCERN:
Tenley-Friendship Library/Janney Elementary School RFP

1. DMPED’s approach to decision-making about public lands has been unconstrained by law, by any consistent standards, or by procedural safeguards.

a. The Fenty Administration seems to have taken the position that the Mayor (or his designee) may unilaterally decide at any time and for any reason to offer public land for sale or long-term lease to private developers.

b. Section 10-801 of the DC Code clearly envisions that, in order to sell or lease public land, the Mayor must first request that the Council declare such land “no longer required for public purposes.” Yet an RFP was issued without taking this project to the Council. Before the issuance of the RFP, ANC 3E requested that the Mayor first seek Council approval and this request was ignored.

c. The LEAD Act of 2006 (incorporated into the DC Code as part of section 39-101) specifies that any revenue generated by the sale or lease of land, air, or mixed-use development rights involving library properties shall be deposited in a separate trust fund dedicated to funding library facilities. Yet DMPED apparently assumes that any revenue generated by this project can be used for subsidizing school modernization and/or the construction of affordable housing, despite the fact that DCPL is likely to contribute the most and the most valuable land and air rights to the project.

2. David Jannarone, DMPED’s Director of Development, has a clear conflict of interest in this case, yet he has managed this project throughout.

a. Jannarone was employed by Roadside Development from 2004-2006.

b. An “unsolicited proposal from a developer” (i.e. Roadside) was, according to Deputy Mayor Neil Albert, what led to the issuance of an RFP for the Tenley-Friendship Library/Janney School property.

c. Since January 2007, Jannarone, at the request of Susan Linsky (Vice President of Roadside), personally interceded on behalf of this project, and strategized with Linsky about how to get the project authorized. In July 2007, Jannarone met with Mayor Fenty to urge him to issue an RFP for this site; ten days later, ANC 3E Commissioners learned from a DMPED employee that an RFP would be issued.

d. Jannarone apparently waited until August 2007 to inform his direct superior, Valerie Santos Young, that he had a conflict of interest with respect to this project. Though Santos Young offered to relieve him of his supervisory duties, Jannarone continued to be actively involved in managing the project for the next two months, while Santos Young appears to have been largely out of the loop.

e. When the press began inquiring into the conflict of interest story in October 2007, Jannarone lied about his involvement, claiming that it had been minimal, it had occurred more than a year after he left Roadside’s employ, and that it ended in mid-August. Recently FOIA’d document prove all three of these statements false.

f. This issue cannot be resolved by simply excluding Jannarone from the developer selection decision. His conflict of interest has tainted the entire process – leading to the issuance of an RFP at the behest of an ex-employer, rather than on the basis of an objective analysis of whether private development on this site serves the public interest.

g. Given the origins of this project and the lack of any surplussing decision by the Council, the appropriate question at this point is not simply which developer gets to buy or lease the rights to build on this site, but whether this parcel of public land should be on the market at all.

3. DMPED has begged what should have been the threshold questions answered prior to the issuance of any RFP:

a. Will there be surplus land (or excess development capacity) available on this site after the facilities needs of Janney School and Tenley Library are met?

b. If so, should that land/development capacity be devoted to other public purposes ?

c. If there is land available for private use, how much and what land should be made available for what kind of private development?

d. If the project does generate revenue, where should that money be channeled?

These questions have all been left to developers rather than to the Council to answer.

4. None of the expertise of various executive agencies (OCFO, OP, DCPS, OPEFM, DDOT, DCPL) informed the decision regarding whether to issue an RFP.

a. No analysis of public facilities needs was made prior to the issuance of an RFP. Janney School is currently overcrowded and DCPS plans not only to relieve the current overcrowding but to expand the school’s facilities to accommodate 550 students. This will require not only the doubling of the interior space of the school, but also the provision of additional playground space and a multipurpose PE playing field assuming, as is DCPS’s policy, that Janney’s remodernization will bring the school into conformity with current educational specifications. The goal here should not be to preserve existing green space or to minimize the loss of green space to commercial development – we need to ensure that DCPS will have the land required to expand exterior as well as interior programmatic space at Janney School in order to provide adequate educational facilities consistent with the anticipated increase in student enrollments.

b. Nor was there any economic analysis of whether (or on what terms) a public-private partnership would be economically beneficial to the city given that capital funding is already available for both public facilities modernization projects. ANC 3E’s request that the RFP require OCFO and OPEFM to conduct independent analyses of proposals prior to their submission to a selection committee was also ignored. As a result, selection committee members will have only the developers’ representations of the economic benefits and the feasibility of their respective plans to base their decisions upon.

5. DMPED’s reliance on the support of the Ward Councilmember for this project is no substitute for Council oversight.

a. Public lands belong not just to particular neighborhoods but to the citizenry of the District of Columbia as a whole. A Ward Councilmember has no special/unique legal authority to determine the fate of public lands located within the geographical boundaries of his or her district. The Council as a whole is entrusted with the stewardship of public lands.

b. Official Council actions, unlike the actions of individual Council Members, require various forms of publicity and notice.

c. In the Tenleytown case, the Ward Council Member behaved in ways that do not inspire public trust.

i. Susan Linsky, now a VP of Roadside with responsibility for this project, was one of a group of development-oriented professionals who supported Mary Cheh’s candidacy for Ward 3 Councilmember. Linsky, then a DMPED official, was one of Cheh’s most active senior campaign advisors.

ii. Even before she took office, Cheh began lobbying for a mixed-use project at the Tenley Library site, meeting with Ginnie Cooper in December of 2006. At that point, Roadside was the only developer expressing an interest in such a project.

iii. In her e-mail correspondence with Jannarone, Linsky mentions that she “continue[s] to mentor Mary [Cheh] and her staff.” Jannarone opines that DMPED will be more likely to take up the project if Roadside can get the community and/or the Councilmember to invite them in.

iv. In June 2007, Cheh sent a letter, co-signed by Council Member Kwame Brown, to Mayor Fenty urging him to undertake a mixed-use project at the Tenley Library/Janney School site. The fact that Cheh had learned, only two days before, that Roadside’s proposal for the site was based on a gross underestimation of Janney Elementary’s facilities needs (i.e. Roadside envisioned a 13,000 SF addition rather than the 39,000 SF addition called for by DCPS), apparently did not dampen her enthusiasm for the project.

v. Roadside and its principals contributed to Cheh’s campaign fund after her success in the general election. They also made a contribution to her constituent services fund a week before she wrote her letter supporting their call for a mixed-use project at the Tenley Library/Janney School site.

vi. While Cheh did not make public her letter to the Mayor supporting the project, she apparently gave a copy to Susan Linsky or another representative of Roadside Development. (Neither the company nor any of its representatives were cc’d on the letter.) In July 2007, Linsky referenced the letter in a meeting with the facilities committee of the Library Trustees, urging their support for Roadside’s proposal.

vii. Nor did Cheh reveal that she had already sent a letter of support to the Mayor when she asked her community-based Taskforce to poll their organizations about the project and submit their opinions to her by August 3rd. so that she could inform decisionmakers of their perspectives. Although a number of different organizations submitted written responses to her request, Cheh apparently did not forward their comments or otherwise report the results of her polling to DMPED. Instead, on August 5th, she told DMPED that if they wanted to pursue this project it was urgent that they get an RFP out as soon as possible.

6. DMPED has repeatedly attempted to pre-empt ANC involvement in this matter.

a. Unlike Ward Councilmembers, local ANCs do have a special, legally authorized, role to play in local land use decisions. Yet what limited input ANC 3E has had in this process has been hard-fought every step of the way.

b. Without notice, David Jannarone chose to use the ANC 3E’s August meeting, a meeting at which our special committee was scheduled to make reports and recommendations to the full ANC regarding the public-private partnership, as the occasion for announcing that DMPED had already decided to pursue the project, without seeking community input or Council approval.

c. Subsequently, ANC 3E has scheduled community meetings on this project in consultation with DMPED. But twice now, DMPED has changed timelines after the fact in an attempt to render such meetings meaningless. The September meeting scheduled to discuss the draft RFP had to be cancelled at the last minute when the draft was not provided as promised, just days earlier. DMPED then attempted to truncate the comment period on the draft RFP so that the rescheduled October community meeting would take place after the deadline for receiving comments had passed. Pushback from the community and Kwame Brown reversed that decision. Nevertheless, the final draft of the RFP did not incorporate any of the revisions that emerged out of that community meeting and were officially endorsed by the ANC in an emergency session.

d. To date, DMPED has refused to release to the ANC the details of any of the proposals it received in response to the RFP. It plans to schedule the community meeting at which those proposals will be presented sometime after ANC 3E’s February meeting and to name a development partner before ANC 3E’s March meeting.

In conclusion, we offer this case study as an example to use in thinking through the necessary and appropriate role of Council oversight in the disposition of public lands. This is an urgent issue both for our community and citywide.

While we believe that existing law not only authorizes but requires Council action prior to the offer of public lands for sale or long-term lease, we would also argue that if existing law is too ambiguous to prevent such decisions from being made prior to official Council involvement, then the Council must reform the law to enable it to better exercise its oversight function. The whole Council needs to be involved in these decisions from the beginning, because only the Council can provide the appropriate counterweight to DMPED. Such a counterweight is clearly necessary if we want to ensure that public facilities needs are driving decision-making about public lands. Moreover, Council involvement is necessary to ensure that such decisions are made transparently and with public input.

Once lost, public lands are either gone forever or reclaimed only at great expense. The Council has a duty to the people of this city to ensure that the public interest -- rather than the private interests of developers and individuals in government -- is being served when public lands are sold or leased for private use.

Addendum to “Causes for Concern”

On Friday, February 1st, DMPED radically altered the terms of the Tenleytown RFP. Most significantly, it announced that “Any proposal that include [sic] a development program that integrates the Library within the larger redevelopment footprint will no longer be considered responsive.”

This modification came almost a month after the deadline for submissions had passed.

DMPED had previously announced that it received three proposals in response to the RFP.

DMPED notified one developer (LCOR) that it had two weeks to revise and resubmit its proposal to bring it into conformity with the RFP’s new requirements.

It did not notify another (See Forever/Unidev) that the RFP had been amended.

DMPED also did not inform ANC 3E that the RFP had been modified. Commissioners and other community members learned this news from LCOR on Monday afternoon.

Both LCOR’s and See Forever/Unidev’s submissions were heavily dependent on the component of the project (a mixed-use building incorporating the library) that has now been prohibited.

Rumor has it that Roadside’s original proposal may conform to/have anticipated this new requirement.

We hate to rely on rumor (although a number of us involved in the project have a similar recollection of a Roadside rep having said that, in response to community concerns, they were working on a plan that would enable their project to be developed “side-by-side” with the library), but DMPED has refused the ANC’s requests (and the requests of other community members) to make public the proposals submitted in response to the RFP. DMPED also refused the ANC 3E’s and 3F’s earlier requests to include community representatives on the panel reviewing those submissions.

Basically, DMPED has created a situation in which it solicits offers, keeps the details private, revises the RFP after seeing who has proposed what, and then selectively informs respondents of the new requirements and deadlines for meeting them. This project is a lawsuit waiting to happen.

After paying a contractor $83,000 to write a very schematic RFP, DMPED found it necessary to issue major revisions to that RFP long after submissions were due. Ironically, a number of these revisions (including opening up the project to proposals that did not incorporate the library) involve provisions that the ANC requested be included in the RFP before it was issued. But those suggestions were ignored at the time. Had they been included originally, DMPED would have received different and, presumably, better proposals. To impose them retroactively and with an impossibly short schedule for response is both anti-competitive and a recipe for disaster. It was bad enough to ask developers other than Roadside to design a school/library/affordable housing project with a for-profit component in two months over the holidays. To now ask them to create major revisions to those proposals in two weeks is outrageous. This is not the way to build better public facilities.

So in addition to our previous concerns that cronyism (rather than public facilities needs) is driving this project, we’d now like to add that DMPED is proving that its employees are dangerously incompetent in establishing the terms for competitive bidding on public-private partnerships.