Black's protest dropped; seafood restaurant and bar on its way

TBD reports this morning that all protests aginst Jeff Black's new seafood-themed restaurant and bar have been dropped. This means that Black can continue the build-out of the space can continue without any concerns related to the obtainment of a liquor license. As we reported previously, there were some sticking points in the negotiation process between Black, ANC2F and a group of citizen protesters.

The final license agreement stipulates closing hours of 1 AM weekdays and 2 AM weekends, along with outdoor patio hours of 11 PM weekedays, midnight on Friday and Saturday, and 10 PM Sunday. As part of the negotiations, Black agreed to drop plans for a so-called "smoker's deck" in the back of the restaurant.

No official word yet on an official opening date for the Pearl Dive Oyster Bar and BlackJack, but look for something early-mid summer.

The Neverending Story Continues: ANC Officially Withdraws Hank's Protest, ABC Board Yet to Rule

Believe me, if you're sick of reading about the ongoing drama related to the proposed expansion of Dupont Circle eatery Hank's Oyster Bar, we're even more sick of writing about it. It's one of those issues that seems to polarize the neighborhood--with most neighborhood residents either supportive or unopposed, and a small cadre of residents opposed to the expansion and insistent upon dragging the process on for a seemingly unendurable length of time.

There's no need to re-hash the issues at play here--click on one of the links above, or head over to Borderstan where Tom Hay should be considered for a Pulitzer for his work documenting the situation over the last several months. But here's where things currently stand:

At last week's meeting of ANC2B, the ANC voted unanimously (with one abstention) to withdraw its protest of Hank's expansion, which includes taking over an adjacent building and expanding both a sidewalk-facing patio as well as a "summer garden" in the back of the building. The ANC also voted unanimously to support the placarding of the changes because they were deemed to be "substantial" changes.

This leaves Hank's with the final hurdle of approval before the ABC Board before the expansion can proceed. The ABC vote will also be the last opportunity for a small but vocal group of resident protesters to derail the expansion plans, although that seems highly unlikely. As we've previously noted, the resident protesters, through multiple meetings and hearings, have been unable to demonstrate an adverse impact to the neighborhood to such a degree that the ABC Board would refuse to approve an otherwise legally permissible expansion.

In other words, come 2011, this nearly year-long saga might finally draw to a close. And we'll have to find something new to write about.

ANC2B Files, Then Withdraws, Protest of Hank's; Residents Threaten Legal Action

Tossing aside months of statements amounting to "we're not going to get involved," ANC2B voted at last week's meeting to protest the renewal of the liquor license for Jamie Leeds' popular Hank's Oyster Bar--then promptly rescinded the letter of protest after working out a deal with Leeds.

Meanwhile, a group of resident protesters led by Q Street resident David Mallof have threatened to file an appeal with the DC Court of Appeals should the alcohol board allow the termination of Hank's VA with the residents, along with a request from Leeds to add a rooftop garden and french doors leading to the street-level patio.

That's right: residents are threatening legal action over french doors.

If you're wondering what happened, well, so are we. it's rather long and winding road towards what has been a rather absurdly drawn-out protest of a popular neighborhood eatery. (Our post from a few months ago covers the protest in excruciating detail. Pour yourself a stiff drink before reading it.)

Basically, what it comes down to is this: a few area residents have decided that Leeds' plans to expand into the adjacent vacant space, and to vacate her existing VA with them, amounts to the end of life as we know it. Or something akin to that. Never mind that Leeds is perfectly within her rights to pursue expansion into the adjacent space--the recently re-ratified 17th Street Liquor License Moratorium specifically permits Leeds to do exactly that. And never mind that said protestants were unable to demonstrate any actual or potential harm by such a move--or even why a VA was necessary.

The ANC had voted to take no action on either the' "substantial change" to Hank's license (namely, the expansion into the neighboring building and outdoor space) or Leeds' request to terminate her VA with the Dupont Circle Citizen's Association and the aforementioned neighborhood residents.

The ANC's decision to reverse course came as a result of comments made by Leeds' attorney, Andrew Kline, at a November 3 alcohol board hearing, where he mentioned that Hank's would be legally permitted to maintain sidewalk cafe hours until 2 AM weekdays and 3 AM weekends--which they would. Except, they had no intention of doing so. Leeds had stated repeatedly that she had no intention of expanding Hank's patio hours.

Still, the ANC, as commissioner Victor Wexler put it, "does not want to risk having those hours allowed for anyone." So they filed a protest. Leeds immediately filed letter with ABRA which restricted her hours to 11 PM and midnight, which matched the statements she repeatedly made under oath at the alcohol board hearing. Subsequently, the ANC withdrew its protest, leaving Leeds' last remaining hurdle an upcoming ABRA Board hearing on the resident's protest of the expansion and substantial change.

Or perhaps not. In a ridiculously hyperbolic email recently sent by Mallof to a group of "interested" residents (subject line: "Grave ABC Board actions affecting all of DC"), he threatens to pursue further legal action should the alcohol board not side with his and his group's opposition to Leeds' plans:

"We await word on theses dramatically proposed instant license change requests," the email states. "If the Board approves these without placarding and public comment, we shall appeal to the DC Court of Appeals as well."

Is it any possible wonder why Leeds wanted to vacate her VA with these people?

In case you were wondering, Leeds' request to vacate her VA is entirely within the bounds of the law--any business that has been operating under one for at least four years has the right to make such a request. And although such requests were rare, in Leeds' case the alcohol board found that the key points of contention which would otherwise be addressed in the VA--namely, occupancy and operating hours--were addressed in the licensing agreement, thus making the VA redundant.

And so here we are, nearly a year after Leeds launched an effort to expand her restaurant: the ANC is not opposing the move, and the alcohol board seems poised to permit it. So where does that leave Mallof and the other resident protesters? They could certainly appeal the alcohol board's decision, but it's unlikely that such an appeal would meet with success. Most likely, they're going to be left on the outside looking in: having only themselves to blame for behaving so unreasonably and essentially forcing Leeds to pursue remedies to vacate the agreement she had signed with them. Ultimately, they'll likely be left with no recourse other than sending emails to each other complaining of the "hurricane of precedent setting, DC-wide rule of law and negative externality impact implications happening here in Dupont Circle."

Goodness, you'd think Jamie Leeds was trying to install french doors or something.

Saloon Owner Threatens to Leave U Street Due to Liquor License Dispute

The 14thandyous love the Saloon. We really, truly do. How can you not love a bar that refuses to have a TV, forbids patrons from standing, and will toss you and your party out if you get too noisy?

But The Saloon has gotten themselves into a bit of hot water, and it has to do with DC's oft-maligned liquor license laws. The Saloon, which is owned by Kamal Jahanbein, operates under a "Restaurant Class" liquor license which, among other stipulations, requires that it derive at least 45% of its sales from food.

As the City Paper reports, Jahanbein was given a good talking-to during a recent Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Board hearing because The Saloon only generates food sales in the neighborhood of 35%. In order to operate without a food restriction, Jahanbein would need to transition to a "Tavern Class" license, only neighborhood residents tend to flip out whenever a business does that.

The problem, as Jahanbein sees it, is that DC doesn't officially recognize the type of establishment The Saloon is--a pub.

Now, we hate to say that we called this one, but this is a point we made way back in the day (March 2010, to be exact) we raised this very issue, and how a third classof license for alcohol-serving establishments--a Pub License--needed to be created. This would address those types of establishments that do not sell enough food to be a restaurant, but may not operate as an out-and-out bar.

Or, as Jahanbein put it, "If they want to call us a tavern, we are a tavern. But we are a pub."

Indeed they are. Only DC has no Pub Class license, leaving Jahanbein in a bit of a quandary--he can pay a $1,000 fine and submit to ongoing monitoring of his establishment, or he can pursue a Tavern Class license. According to the CP article, he's not happy about either situation, but would be willing to pursue a Tavern license if he thought it would be successful. If not, he mentions that he might pack up and move his bar to a more accommodating neighborhood.

I'm not inclined to get on my soapbox about this again, so I'll keep my rant here simple: the city is shooting itself in the foot by refusing to acknowledge that there is a class of licensee that exists between a restaurant and a bar. Anyone who has visited London, for instance, could tell you this. By refusing to acknowledge this, the city is creating two unhelpful situations: businesses who do not wish to be beholden to the food service requirements (such as having a chef on premises up to two hours before closing time) must either seek to convert to a tavern license (and thus leave the city with no recourse to regulate them via a food service requirement), or risk being shut down or levied with fines.

As this issue begins to crop up more and more, you'll likely see more businesses advocating for this type of thing. As it stands, time will tell whether U Street residents have the stomach for another "tavern" along the corridor.

Hank's: Analysis of a Liquor License Protest

Frequently, on here and elsewhere, we delve into discussions about liquor licenses; specifically, the frequent protests that are brought by ANCs and other citizens groups in an attempt to regulate the licensee through the voluntary agreement process. In the majority of instances, both the licensee and the protesters are able to reach an agreement that is satisfactory to both.

There are instances, unfortunately, when an agreement cannot be reached amicably. Sometimes, this is the result of one party believing that it will prevail in a hearing before the ABRA Board. In other instances, it is simply a case of a group of protesters abusing the protest process. Such is the case with the current protest of expansion plans by Hank's Oyster Bar.

The timing here is interesting, as the status of Hank's liquor license will be addressed at an upcoming meeting, on October 13, at ABRA (scroll to the bottom of the page for information on Hank's).

First, a bit of background. Hank's opened in their location at 17th and Q streets in 2005, the recipient of a single license expansion of the liquor license moratorium in place along 17th Street. The license was protested furiously--not by the Dupont Circle ANC, but rather by a group of residents who live near the intersection of 17th and Q streets. Nevertheless, Hank's prevailed, and chef-owner Jamie Leeds' establishment was quickly cemented as one of the area's most popular eateries.

Fast forward to 2010, and Leeds announces plans to expand to the adjacent space and add 20 outdoor seats. Fans of Hank's applauded the long overdue move, which well help alleviate some of the long waits for those attempting to dine in the crowded space. However, some of the residents, many of whom were among the original protesters, were not amused. And, in spite of the fact that ANC2B voted not to protest the expansion plans, nor to protest Leeds' request to vacate her VA (on the grounds that her license includes all of the stipulations in the VA, making it redundant), they filed a protest anyway.

At this point in other posts, I might say a few words about the dangers of abusing the liquor license protest process, or about the reflexive opposition that seems to rear up from time to time around here. Instead, I'm going to let the protesters' words speak for themselves, so that readers can see--and judge for themselves--the merit of the arguments made by the protesters. As ANC2B commissioner Jack Jacobson noted recently, this seems to be a case of a group of protesters singling out a business without cause. Not only that, I might add, but the protest they have filed is completely baseless. Thus, below, I'm providing a point-by-point analysis of the specific issues raised by the protesters in their protest which was filed with ABRA on July 26.

First, a word about the protesters. The two lead protesters, David Mallof and Alexis Rieffel, do not live along the same block as Hank's. In fact, none of the protesters do. Most live along the 1700 block of Q, with some living as far south as 17th and Massachusetts. Why someone who lives at 17th and Massachusetts would be provoked to such a degree of outrage over an additional 20 outdoor seats at a restaurant 2 1/2 blocks away, I can only imagine. Anyway, onto the Re: line:

Re: Protest of Substantial Change Request to Dramatically Increase Seating and Use of Public Space within the Already Overconcentrated East Dupont Moratorium Zone at the Hyperconcentrated (sic) Street Corner of 17th and Q Streets, NW

Note the creative use of adjectives and adverbs: "dramatically increase," "overconcentrated" "hyperconcentrated". The intersection of 17th and Q features Trio, Hank's, the Java House coffee shop, and Floriana, along with a valet service and a residence. "Hyperconcentrated" doesn't mean what it used to, I guess. Moving on...

1. THE REQUEST IS PROHIBITED BY AN IN-FORCE, VALID AND CONTRACTUAL VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT

Actually, Hank's request is not "prohibited" by the Agreement, it simply isn't included in it. Hence Leeds' request to amend her license to include the adjacent building and outdoor seating area.

2. THE BOARD LACKS AUTHORITY TO FURTHER INCREASE MYRIAD CONCENTRATION AND ITS MYRIAD IMPACTS IN THE FACE OF RECENT FINDING OF OVERCONCENTRATION THAT RESULTED IN RENEWAL OF THE EAST DUPONT EMERGENCY MORATORIUM

There's a lot to parse through in this one, not the least of which is the use of a phrase--"myriad concentration"--for which I am unable to discern a definition. No matter. The gyst of what is being argued here is that because the 17th Street "emergency" moratorium is in place (now going on 19 years), by default ABRA should not approve Hank's expansion plans, because it would seem to be in contradiction to the purpose of the moratorium. There is one small problem with this position: it ignores the ruling by ABRA on the moratorium, published just this past May. Remember, Hank's is seeking to expand its operations, not obtain a new license. From ABRA's ruling:

"Public comment received by the Board reflects that there is a need for more than the two (2) lateral expansion applications requested by ANC 2B. Specifically, there are establishments with significant neighborhood support, who would not be able to file if lateral expansions were limited to only two (2) applications. As such, the Board now finds that it is appropriate to grant four (4) lateral expansions, rather than the two (2) that were originally requested."

In other words, what Leeds is requesting is entirely permissible under the adoption of the moratorium by ABRA earlier this year.

A. We appreciate the ambiance, diversity and positive externalities created by the ABC licensing, as well as the community benefits of allowing responsible licensees the use of scarce public space for ancillary sidewalk cafes.

The emphasis on the phrase "public space" was their's, ostensibly to remind us that Hank's is seeking a permit to place tables and chairs in a space that resides within the public domain. Which is true. But this isn't so much a legal argument against Hank's as it is a fantasy devoid of 17th Street reality--the space Leeds is seeking to expand into is vacant, and has been for years. The "public space" Hank's would be utilizing is not currently being used by anyone, nor are there any plans for it to be used by anyone. Basically, this is an argument that the neighborhood is better served with a vacant property than by allowing a popular--and well-run--neighborhood eatery to expand into it. How many people are honestly buying that argument?

B. It is because of the overcontration's negative impacts that moratoriums are critically important and specifically authorized under Title 25.

This is another appeal to the intention of the moratorium. But, as we've already demonstrated, the intention of the moratorium was to allow the expansion of up to four licensees--precisely what Leeds is seeking to do.

As to these perceived "negative impacts," the protesters go on to list things like "property values," "peace, order and quiet," and the ever-mysterious "and more." The mind reels at what "more" negative impacts Hank's could be imposing upon the Dupont citizenry. The issue of property values is a complete non-starter, as anyone who has watched property values climb over the last decade would attest. (In fact, I'm more inclined to believe the counter-argument: that property values are enhanced by the proximity to establishments such as Hank's.) And to the "peace, order and quiet" argument, as Commissioner Jacobson noted, he represents the residents who live directly across the street from Hank's, and has never once received a complaint about the restaurant.

C. The Board has never found that any of these impacts are in remission, which would be the only reason to allow any expansion of impacts, seats or licenses.

Yet again, it should be pointed out that the moratorium allows for the expansion of an establishment such as Hank's--there is no burden upon the licensee to show that "peace, order and quiet" has been somehow recaptured to a greater degree than it was five years ago.

D. Further, the Board had no data whatsoever in hand, rather pro or con, regarding property values.

To this, we are obliged to point out that whether the Board possessed any evidence of a decline or rise in property values is irrelevant to the question of whether Hank's expansion plans are appropriate and within the bounds of the law. There is no obligation for a licensee to provide an enhancement of property values, nor is there a requirement for the Board to consider such a thing when the moratorium stipulates that expansion is permitted. The protesters, for their part, are unable to present any data that their property values have declined, and they have certainly been unable to present data to show that their property values declined as a result of liquor licensees such as Hank's. (For what it is worth, median home sales prices in Hank's zip code have increased by 15% since 2005--peaking at a rise of 42.8% in 2007.)

Any further expansion of seats in the moratorium zone cannot be consistent with existing laws, or compatible with the broad interests of the District of Columbia, in the absence of factual, empirical, quantitative evidence that it will not result in greater overconcentration or yield some compensating benefits to nearby residents.

Notice the slippery-slope tactics employed here: Hank's request for an additional 20 outdoor seats is now a matter of sufficient concern for residents throughout the entire District! Mr. Mallof already presented a similar version of this argument when he, along with another Q Street resident, urged ABRA to reconsider its position on expansion--specifically, he requested that ABRA limit expansions to interior spaces only, which ABRA declined to do. And again, there is no burden that the licensee present "compensating benefits" to nearby residents, although it could be argued that providing additional seating at one of the brightest restaurant stars amongst an otherwise lackluster corridor constitutes a "compensating benefit".

In the face of repeated findings of overconcentration, we question whether the Board has the authority to grant an increase in net ABC seats in the face of the obvious negative externalities.

To begin, the Board does indeed have that authority--for if not them, then who? Secondly, the existing rule governing the moratorium permits just such an expansion. And it is certainly a matter of opinion as to whether the so-called negative externalities are indeed "obvious".

G. Title 25 makes it clear that the greatest weight must always be accorded to the most proximately affected and impacted residents, including abutting commercial property owners.

On this we agree, and it makes the absence of any of Hank's immediate neighbors--nay, any residents or businesses along Hank's entire block--from the protest all the more interesting.

If the tone here sounds harsh, it's only because I view this as a clear example of a flat-out abuse of the protest process. Leeds has implied in the past that, if things get too difficult for her in Dupont, she'll pack up and head elsewhere. I would not take that as an idle threat.

The thing to keep in mind here is that these protests, no matter how frivolous, have very real consequences for the business owners, who must employ legal counsel, use up vast amounts of time, and defer operating plans until the protest can be resolved. This case is particularly egregious, as it includes protesters who have protested Hank's before, largely regarding the same issues. If the issues were not valid before, what makes them valid now? And why must Leeds, and similar business owners, face down protests such as this time and again?

These are questions that should be asked, as not only can situations like this adversely impact good local business owners, but it also threatens the ability of residents to reasonably address legitimate issues with the business operating in their neighborhood. In this instance, Hank's immediate neighbors may in fact be well-served by the execution of a reasonable, balanced voluntary agreement--only the behavior of the protestants in this instance has been so abysmal, it's no wonder Leeds doesn't want any kind of agreement with them.

Ultimately, there are few who believe that Hank's expansion plans will not be approved, largely because they are reasonable and within the bounds of the law. But that simply makes us question the purpose of engaging in this protest. District law, rightly or wrongly, permits it--but to what end?

"Voluntary Agreements" - Necessary or NIMBYism?

EDIT (7-22-2010): Seems the residents of Bloomingdale aren't very happy with their ANC's refusal to support the liquor license application of the Big Bear Cafe. Fits in quite well with the theme of the post below.

*****

That simultaneously loved and loathed peculiarity of DC regulatory law is back in the news again--I am speaking, of course, about the "voluntary agreement".

For those new to these proceedings, a quick primer: when an alcohol-serving establishment wishes to open in a neighborhood, residents of that neighborhood (or the neighborhood's ANC) have the right to "protest" the granting of the liquor license to the establishment. And with a few exceptions, they pretty much always do. In order to get the protest removed, the establishment typically negotiates with the protesters for the establishment of a "voluntary agreement" that places restrictions or conditions on aspects of the business such as operating hours, noise levels, trash pick-up, and more. In other words, the intent of the VA process is to give residents potentially affected by the establishment a voice in the proceedings, to prevent businesses from running roughshod over the neighbors.

I'll state up front that I typically support the VA process. More often than not, the agreements are sensible and provide for an environment where both the business and neighborhood residents are satisfied. But there is tremendous potential for abuse. In a letter that appeared in this week's Dupont Current, Bill Duggan, owner of Madam's Organ in Adams Morgan, penned a scathing diatribe attacking the VA process, pointing out the tremendous cost to both businesses and taxpayers when an ANC or group of protesters manipulates the VA process. (By way of example, Duggan points to the fact that Madam's Organ's liquor license renewal was protested for 15 months, through 7 different hearings, by the Kalorama Citizens Association before it was finally tossed. For an example a bit closer to home, Saint-Ex's struggles last year to obtain a change in classification for their license turned into an exercise in immense frustration.)

Interestingly, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which is tasked with granting approval to all voluntary agreements, appears to be staking out a position that no longer includes automatic approval of any VA placed before it. Last week's Current discusses the case of popular 14th street restaurant Thaitanic's attempt to expand its operations to a second story. ANC2F Commissioner Charles Reed negotiated the VA with Thaitanic which included, among other stipulations, that the establishment must close by 1 AM--an hour earlier than allowed by DC ordinance on weekdays, and two hours on weekends. In an uncharacteristic move, the Board rejected the VA on the grounds that the closing hours stipulation appeared to be arbitrary--a move which suggests a change in policy for the Board, which was confirmed in later statements by Board spokesperson Cynthia Simms.

The decision angered Reed, who accused the Board of changing the rules without notice. To which many restaurant and bar owners might respond: good. Although I stated above my general supportiveness of the VA process, some changes to the structure would bring balance to a tilted system. As Greater Greater Washington's David Alpert recently noted, liquor license protests that lack sufficient grounds, or that amount to little more than the badgering of a local business by agenda-driven residents or ANC commissioners, serves only to harm the process and stoke anti-VA sentiment amongst city residents.

Alpert took issue with a recent vote by the Dupont Circle ANC to protest the liquor license application for P.J. Clarke's, who wanted to host a sidewalk cafe at 16th and K, in the space formerly occupied by Olives. Despite support for the license from several commissioners, including Jack Jacobson, Will Stephens and Victor Wexler, the ANC voted to protest the license anyway, apparently simply because they can. It's hard to imagine the New York-based restaurant chain, which would be filling a space in the center of a major city that had been previously held by a restaurant with outdoor seating, in an area dominated by office buildings and hotels, could possibly be a threat to the neighborhood's "peace, order and quiet". We aren't in Pleasantville, after all.

But why let a little common sense get in the way of a good protest?

Alpert is entirely correct on this issue: this kind of behavior on the part of the ANC is simply unnecessary and unwarranted. (It is worth noting that the Logan Circle ANC, 2F, has a policy of not protesting any liquor license applications for businesses within the central business district.) When abused, it's tantamount to bullying, and serves no purpose other than to provide certain individuals with the ability to exert control over an establishment's operations because the process allows them to do so.

If the ABC Board is set to enact policy changes that address this type of behavior, it is an unequivocally positive step towards bringing balance to this process. For example, the notion of protesting licenses on the grounds of "peace, order and quiet" has been used so frequently, it barely retains any real meaning. Alcohol-serving establishments opening in primarily residential neighborhoods have a duty to be respectful of their neighbors, but those in predominantly commercial or business corridors shouldn't be held to the same standards. Likewise, the ability to drag out a protest for months, and even years, should be curtailed. In much the same way that U.S. citizens are guaranteed the right to a speedy trial, license applicants negotiating fairly and reasonably should be able to resolve protests within a timely manner. And, a certain amount of consistency should be applied to VA stipulations, such as operating hours and outdoor seating.

To be sure, the VA process is a useful one and shouldn't be dispensed with completely. (Those clamoring for unfettered rights for business owners would be advised to speak with neighbors of establishments that weren't quite so respectful to area residents.) But it is past time for the ABC Board to examine this process and take appropriate steps to correct what can be a rather one-sided affair. A clearly articulated policy that addresses these issues fairly and transparently will truly be advantageous to all parties--and in practice, not simply in rhetoric.

Tensions Rise in Masa 14 Negotiations at ANC Meeting

Is it a conflict of interest for an ANC commissioner tasked with negotiating a voluntary agreement with an establishment to also be serving as a witness for a group of residents protesting the establishment?

That was one of several issues to arise during a tense ANC1B meeting on Thursday evening at the Reeves Center. The commissioner in question is ANC1B commissioner and Liquor Licenses Committee Chairman Peter Raia, who has been leading negotiations on behalf of the ANC for an expansion of popular 14th Street restaurant Masa 14. Masa is seeking to open a rooftop deck, which has created a not insubstantial amount of concern amongst neighbors concerning the potential for noise emanating from the establishment at late hours.



In his position as Liquor License Committee Chairman, Raia has been tasked with negotiating the revised voluntary agreement with Masa. At Thursday's meeting, fellow ANC1B commission Brianne Nadeau raised the point that Raia, in addition to his ANC position, has also agreed to serve as a witness for a group of residents protesting the expansion. Masa 14 exists within Raia's single member district. 1B Chairperson Anderson Holness pointed out that nothing precludes Raia from serving in both roles, provided it is clear that he is acting only as a resident--and not as an ANC commissioner--when serving as a witness for the group of resident protestants.

Things became increasingly testy when Andrew Kline, the attorney representing Masa in the negotiations, came before the ANC to discuss the status of the negotiations. Kline claimed that he was assured by Raia that Raia would support operating hours of Masa's rooftop deck of 1 AM on weekdays and 2 AM on weekends. Raia claimed no such promise was ever made, to which Kline responded "Are you calling me a liar, Mr. Raia?"

At this point, Chairperson Holness intervened and warned both Kline and Raia against bringing personal disagreements before the ANC. After additional discussions, Raia put forth a motion for the ANC to accept Masa's outdoor operating hours of 11 PM on weekdays and 12 AM on weekends, hours which Kline indicated Masa would find unacceptable. That motion failed.

Commissioner Nadeau followed with a motion of her own, recommending that the ANC accept operating hours of 1 AM on weekdays and 2 AM on weekends; that was later amended to midnight on weekdays and 2 AM on weekends. That motion passed 6-1, with Raia being the only "nay" vote. Kline indicated that this compromise would likely be acceptable, which brings that matter nearer to a close.

The tense discussions highlighted the constant struggle within ANC1B to successfully handle the volume of liquor licenses within the commission's boundaries. Raia has been chairing meetings of the ANC's liquor license committee, which have met with some controversy in the past regarding who can attend, and what kind of business gets conducted there.

In October, Mid-City Business Association Vice President Jean Homza wrote a letter to all ANC1B commissioners regarding the meetings, claiming that she was essentially kicked out of the Committee's October meeting, with Commissioner Raia telling her that "that only residents could participate in the committee." This was in apparent contradiction to the statement on the ANC's website, which stated "members of the community are encouraged to join and participate in the work of this committee."

Homza raised concerns regarding the type of business conducted at the meetings, which included discussions about the "thoughts of the community on our current [liquor] licenses," particularly in light of the fact that the meeting was apparently not open to all members of the community.

Since then, the Committee's meeting times have been posted to the ANC's website, and have been open to all members of the community. The next meeting will take place on Thursday, May 19.

As to the ongoing saga of Masa 14's license, the ANC's vote on Thursday helps bring the matter closer to completion. Still outstanding, however, is the resident protest, of which--as noted above--Raia will be serving as a witness. A hearing on the license is scheduled for June, which will take place should the parties be unable to reach agreement.

Could Hank's Be Driven Out of Dupont?

Whenever the discussion on this blog turns from snow and graffiti removal towards neighborhood business issues--in particular, restaurants and bars--the conversation inevitably turns towards the role that the ANC and other neighborhood groups play in neighborhood business affairs. It's an argument I can honestly say has two sides.

For example, the ANC can provide a valuable service to the neighborhood and its residents by serving as a sort of "buffer" between the operators and managers of bars and restaurants in the neighborhood, and the citizens who live nearby. We have to live near these places seven days a week, the neighbors say, and thus our voice must carry great weight with those in the city tasked with granting liquor licenses and other applications. And so it is.

The tool used by the ANCs to accomplish this is, of course, the "voluntary agreement." The voluntary agreement, or VA, is somewhat misnamed, as there is little "voluntary" about it, at least from the proprietor's point of view. Restaurant and bar owners forsake the VA process at their own peril; without one in place, the ANC will almost assuredly carry their liquor license protest all the way to an ABRA hearing, where the applicant risks losing the opportunity to obtain a license entirely, likely dooming the business. And although my experience has been that applicants are generally able to negotiate an agreement that works for both the establishment and the neighborhood, there have also been occasions when the process has become unnecessarily adversarial.

Why am I bringing this up now, you ask? After all, the issue is pervasive, affecting every liquor license holder within the boundaries of the neighborhood--in other words, it's nothing new. And I would agree. But every once in awhile, an issue arises that highlights the problems when a handful of individuals in a position of authority behave in a manner that is clearly at odds with the best interests of the neighborhood. In this particular instance, the issue surrounds a popular neighborhood establishment and the process by which a VA was negotiated.

The most recent issue of Metro Weekly contains an interview with local chef/restaurateur Jamie Leeds, of Hank's Oyster Bar in Dupont and CommonWealth in Columbia Heights. Hank's, as you may know, has been one of the few new establishments to open with a liquor license on 17th Street in recent years, due to the liquor license moratorium currently in place there. A beacon of culinary indulgence amongst a sea of mediocrity, Hank's immediately established itself as a neighborhood favorite since opening in 2005. An award-winning establishment, Hank's is one of the few reasons (the other's being Trio's milkshakes and Pasha Bistro's gyros) to dine out along 17th Street these days.

In the interview, Leeds discusses her budding restaurant empire, as well as her future plans--among them, an expansion of Hank's in Dupont. And while there is near unanimous consent amongst patrons and neighbors alike that Hank's has been a positive addition to the neighborhoods, Leeds does not have fond memories of the negotiation process for the voluntary agreement that she engaged in with the Dupont ANC a group of neighborhood protesters. Here's Leeds, discussing the possible expansion of Hank's as well as her anticipation on dealing with the process again:

"...an expansion would be great. Everybody's been so positive in wanting it, in pushing me to do it. But, you know, if I come across any more resistance, it's going to be an issue. We have to amend that [D.C. Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration] "voluntary [neighborhood] agreement," and they have to agree for me to expand. It's kind of like I'm back in the same position. If we get any resistance, it'll just leave a very bad taste in my mouth. If it doesn’t enable me to expand, maybe I'll have to move Hank's altogether."

Now, let's be clear: there are a lot of ifs, ands, and buts there. There's no indication that Leeds has any intention of moving Hank's from its Dupont location. But it is nothing short of ridiculous that she should even consider doing so. The purpose of the voluntary agreement is to work out an arrangement for the proprietor to operate his or her establishment according to his or her own desires, in a manner that does not disrupt the lives of the people and businesses nearby. It is NOT a tool to extract every possible concession from the proprietor, and it is being abused if individuals such as Leeds consider the process so daunting and adversative that she leaves open the possibility of relocating the restaurant entirely if things go in that direction again.

Sadly, this is but a singular example in an ever-increasing list of instances where individuals operating within a group that has a degree of neighborhood authority has showed themselves to be out of sync with the direction of the neighborhood and its citizens. Last week, a story ran in the Current about a group of Foggy Bottom citizens--led by a Foggy Bottom ANC commissioner--who were rebuffed in their attempt to halt construction of the George Washington University project at 2400 Pennsylvania Avenue, on the grounds that the building--located in a dense commercial zone and across the street from one of the District's busiest metro stations--was somehow out of proportion for the neighborhood. Last spring, a dispute with Cafe Saint-Ex nearly led to the ANC going to court to protest a change in status for the popular 14th Street restaurant. And we know all too well the ongoing saga of the Wisconsin Avenue Giant project in Cleveland Park, which was delayed for nearly a decade by the actions of the neighborhood's ANC.

Some may read this and respond that the time has come to reform the ANC system in order to diminish the possibility that such situations could arise in the future. However, I think that is premature. As I mentioned at the beginning of this piece, I do believe that the ANC can play a productive role in the process of vetting new businesses for a neighborhood. In instances where a business is behaving as a nuisance and disturbing the neighborhood, the ANC--through the voluntary agreement--has the ability to step in and engage in efforts to force the business to behave responsibly, or risk forfeiture of their license. Such a process shouldn't be marginalized.

However, I would urge residents to play a more active role in the process. ANCs and others do not act in a vacuum; rather, they are comprised of elected officials beholden to the interests of their constituents. When a commissioner is shirking that responsibility, nothing prevents neighborhood residents from making their voices heard and working to ensure that their interests--rather than those of individual commissioners--are heard.

As far as the situation at Hank's goes, it will be interesting to watch the scene unfold. Leeds is currently in negotiations with the ANC on a voluntary agreement, which must be ratified by all parties and ABRA before going into effect. Hopefully, the process goes much more smoothly for all parties than it did five years ago. After all, there is no reason why it shouldn't.

ANC Approves Voluntary Agreements for Estadio, Cork and Fork; Ghana Cafe Opens

Passing along a few notes from this evening's ANC2F meeting, before my head hits the pillow:

The ANC voted unanimously to approve the voluntary agreements for both Estadio and Cork and Fork, paving the way for liquor licenses for both. The approval of Cork & Fork's VA was pretty much a foregone conclusion--only an issue concerning an arcane ABRA regulation relating to the single sales ban caused any hiccups.

Estadio, on the other hand, had provoked a reasonable level of concern from residents of the condo building at 14th and Church streets that it is going to call home. Thanks to the savvy negotiating tactics of ANC2F chairman Charles Reed, all parties came away from the table satisfied. In addition to the VA covering the standard ANC fare (operating hours, parking, noise, etc.), the Estadio team also negotiated a "side agreement" with residents of the building covering issues such as odors and the location of vent fans. If all goes as planned, Estadio looks to be open by this summer.

In other ANC business, the Commission voted unanimously to endorse seven projects, totaling $350,000, that would be applying for funding as part of the Logan Circle Neighborhood Investment Fund through the DC government. Five of the projects were specific recommendations made by the Arts Overlay District Committee involving funding for economic projects for the 14th Street Arts Overlay District, such as a branding campaign for the neighborhood. The other two projects are for a "green team" for 14th Street south of U Street, and $50,000 for a "U Street Visitor's Center" to be awarded to Cultural Tourism DC.

In a later post, I'll delve into more detail on the recommendations made by the Arts Overlay Committee.

**********

One final note to pass along: following months of space build-out and contentious liquor license negotiations, the Ghana Cafe has opened at its new location at 1336 14th Street (although their website says 15th Street--woops).



In addition to a full bar and a menu full of West African goodies, the Cafe will feature live DJs on Thursdays through Sundays spinning Reggae, Afro-Pop and International tunes. More information--including a full menu--can be found at Ghana Cafe's website.

ANC2F Notes: Contentious Liquor License for Estadio; Church to Lose Tax Break?

A bit late on the follow-up to last week's ANC2F meeting, I know, but better late than never I suppose. The most contentious issue of the evening dealt with the liquor license for the forthcoming Estadio at the corner of 14th and Church Streets. Estadio, you may recall, is the new restaurant from the team at Penn Quarter wine bar Proof.























Surprisingly (or not), the residents of the building in which Estadio will be located are not thrilled with the idea of a liquor-serving establishment opening beneath them--and they came to the ANC meeting to make this point. Now, I can understand the concern--this is, after all, the former location of the Garden District, which is about as benign a neighbor as you are going to find. So it's understandable that concerned residents would want to ensure that a strong voluntary agreement is put into place to address issues such as noise, operating hours, trash removal and so forth.

However, the aim of the residents was, apparently, to see to it that the ANC not "grant" the license to Estadio. Never mind that the ANC has no liquor license-granting authority. In the end, the issue was resolved in the way these issues typically are--both parties agreed to sign a voluntary agreement that will be negotiated by the ANC. So, wine lovers, never fear...Estadio will be coming. And residents of the neighborhood, plan to enjoy what will most likely be a fabulous establishment opening up near you, and be thankful that we've got paying tenants willing to lease all of this commercial space in this market.



Also on the docket was a liquor license for local chocolate confection purveyors ACKC. The ACKC team plans to introduce wine tastings and similar fare to their location near 14th and Q streets. The ANC also agreed to enter into a voluntary agreement with ACKC; hopefully amaretto-infused hot cocoa is on the way. Mmmmmm.....

Finally, we've received some inquiries regarding the status of the Vermont Avenue Baptist Church property issue; specifically, the revocation of the church's vacant property tax exemption status for the property they hold at Vermont and Q streets. The Church has owned the property for some time, and throughout that time the property has been a dilapidated eyesore. The District has a way of incentivizing owners of blighted properties to either improve the property or sell--the vacant property tax rate.

Basically, if your property gets hit with this tax rate--which is $10 per $100 of assessed value, or 10%--it's bad news for you, because you're going to be paying a lot of money to keep your property in crummy condition. The Vermont Avenue Baptist Church had received a vacant property tax rate exemption for its Q and Vermont property because, it claims, it had started work on rehabbing the structure. However, the Church has run into some economic difficulties, and thus renovating the property has been placed on the back burner. Which brought us to last Wednesday's meeting.

At the meeting, the ANC voted to send a letter to Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) withdrawing its support for the continuation of the vacant property tax exemption for the Church. This now places the matter in the hands of DCRA, which will need to determine whether the Church has met the criteria to obtain the exemption for another year, or whether it has forfeited it.

Without the ANC's support, the Church faces an uphill battle in maintaining its exemption. Then again, a certain church in nearby Shaw has managed to avoid the vacant property designation for numerous properties it owns, so maybe the guiding hand of the Lord will steer DCRA towards a favorable decision for the VABC.

Tryptophan Withdrawal: ANC2F Meeting This Wednesday; Liquor for ACKC and Estadio

Welcome back from your long weekend of poultry consumption--I hope you enjoyed this chilly, dreary Monday in the nation's capital as much as I did.

To lighten your mood, we offer a preview of the December ANC2F meeting, to be held this Wednesday.  There are a number of items on the agenda (which most certainly promises to make it a lengthy meeting), but only a few items of particular note.

For those who are not aware, the folks from local chocolate peddler ACKC will be on hand to petition for their liquor license.  This is something that had been discussed for some time, but it was only recently that owners Rob Kingsbury and Eric Nelson elected to pursue a license for their establishment.  Could that mean that an order of amaretto-infused hot chocolate isn't far away?  We can only hope.

Also on the docket in the restaurant arena:  a license for the forthcoming "Estadio" (the new restaurant from the "Proof" team) and expanded sidewalk hours for Commissary so that they can serve breakfast.  (Outdoor breakfast in December?  Maybe someone is hedging their bets on the success of global warming.)

Other items of potential interest:  a discussion of the Franklin School RFP, and the potential revocation of the vacant property tax relief for a property held by the Vermont Ave. Baptist Church.  (Anything church-related always proves sufficiently entertaining.)  Finally, there will be a discussion of the Arts Overlay District Committee's Economic Development Recommendations report.  (More on that item in a later post.)

One final item I would like to point out, briefly.  And I point this out knowing what it says about me, that not only do I read the ANC agendas in advance, but I read them in enough detail to catch things like this.  Chairman Charles Reed is constantly griping about the fact that the meetings consistently run over their allotted time (which they do).  A step they could take towards rectifying that situation could be to put together a more realistic agenda, that doesn't include items like this:

7:25 PM:  DDOT Report
7:30 PM:  Community Announcements
10 Minute Break
7:40:  Business Meeting

So, reading this, there is exactly 0 minutes devoted to community announcements (of which there is one listed on the agenda itself, in addition to whatever might get raised at the meeting).  Why do I doubt that the "Business Meeting" will be commencing promptly at 7:40?

For those interested, more information--and the full agenda--can be found at ANC2f's website.

Dupont ANC Taking Aim at Saint-Ex?

Is 14th Street brunch/dinner/bar spot Saint-Ex a restaurant or a tavern?


This is the question that has confronted it and numerous other restaurants in the Dupont/Logan/U Street area in recent months, as the city has moved to clamp down on establishments that don't meet the "restaurant" requirements for food sales. Tavern licenses, which offer much looser restrictions on food, can be difficult to obtain because converting an establishment from a restaurant to a tavern necessitates a change in the liquor license, which is nearly always protested.

With Saint-Ex, the issue is a particularly intriguing one, and serves to highlight the problems inherent in both the District's liquor license laws and the way in which such licenses can be protested.

Thanks to a recent article in the Dupont Current, we learned of Saint-Ex owner John Snellgrove's attempt to convert the liquor license of his business from a restaurant-class license to a tavern. The reason, according to Snellgrove, is that "keeping a chef on premises until two hours before closing time [as necessitated by the restaurant-class liquor law] makes no financial sense." So he's seeking to convert Saint-Ex's license to that of a "tavern" which would significantly loosen the restrictions on the hours of food service.

The point to keep in mind here is this: Snellgrove is adamant that Saint-Ex is dependant upon food sales to survive. The establishment currently exceeds the amount required to meet the restaurant-class quota, and Snellgrove has no intentions of scaling back or otherwise changing his food service. He is merely looking to escape a burdensome regulation that is costing his business money.

If you think that this sounds straightforward enough, then you clearly aren't familiar with the way liquor license protests function in our neighborhood. Practically every single license application —be it for a new license, renewal or change — is protested, frequently by the ANC in which the establishment resides. The U Street Commission has already voted to protest the license change in an attempt to negotiate a new "voluntary" agreement with Saint-Ex. I wasn't in attendance at the U Street ANC meeting when this decision was made, so I can't comment on what changes they are looking for. But that move by itself should have been sufficient to address any concerns the neighborhood might have with Saint-Ex.

Not for Dupont Circle ANC Commissioner Ramon Estrada. You might remember Estrada for his ardent opposition to Constantine Stavropoulos's plans to open a 24 hour diner and comedy club at a still-vacant building at 14th and T streets. Well, Estrada is back, and this time he's taking aim at Saint-Ex.

His complaint? Well, Estrada, who lives across from the establishment, is quoted in the Current article as saying "It’s common for 15 to 20 people to congregate on the sidewalk outside the establishment . . . I’m getting e-mails, calls. People are coming to my door saying that late-night noise shouldn’t go on.” Oh, do tell. You mean people are congregating on a block which sits in the middle of one of the most popular late-night corridors in the city and includes both a late might pizza takeout and a Yum's carryout? You don't say.

Never mind that Estrada can't identify which establishments these clusters of people have been patronizing, at what hours they are congregating, or how much of a disturbance they are actually creating (a fellow T Street resident is quoted as saying "We never have problems [with noise]"), it's got to be the fault of Saint-Ex.

And never mind that Saint-Ex doesn't even reside within Estrada's ANC — he led the charge for a unanimous vote (with one abstention) 6-1 vote (with commissioner Jack Jacobson in opposition) by the Dupont ANC to protest them anyway. And yet, the most absurd statement made by Estrada must be this:

“On its face, I cannot accept that you can’t keep your kitchen open until two hours before closing." To which I say: On its face, I cannot accept advice on running a food-serving establishment from someone who never has.

It is not clear what about Saint-Ex's voluntary agreement the ANC is seeking to amend--information and minutes from the respective ANC1b and 2b meetings are not yet available. Presumably though it would be something along the lines of enforcing the "peace, order and quiet"--a catch-all term that is frequently used to protest liquor licenses and which most certainly is already included in Saint-Ex's VA. Regardless, one has to wonder what other steps Estrada and others have taken to address concerns about crowds and noise associated with Saint-Ex prior to filing the protest.

Though we rarely stake out such defined positions on this blog, I'm going to do so now: that the Dupont ANC is involving themselves in a protest against an establishment that was one of the first restaurants to open along a blighted stretch of 14th Street, is not seeking to change its operations and, by all accounts, has served as a good neighbor is preposterous.

We're not against the proper regulation of businesses in the neighborhood, and we're not opposed to protesting said businesses when legitimate issues arise (such as issues related to The Space in Shaw, and their treatment of neighbors there). But there appears at times to be almost an undercurrent of hostility directed at business owners in the neighborhood, and particularly those with liquor licenses, by some in the community. We've mentioned this before, but it's critical to maintain perspective on these issues: are the complaints emanating from a couple of loud voices, or do they represent a recurring, systemic problem with the establishment?

The irony in all of this is that it is oftentimes these very business which have contributed towards the skyrocketing popularity of the neighborhood as both a commercial AND residential destination. We applaud the work of those in the community who seek to make it a more hospitable environment for residents and businesses alike, but this situation presents yet another example of the pitfalls that can arise when the majority of cooler-headed voices in the community are drowned out by a vocal minority seeking to mold the neighborhood into one of their own personal taste.

The January ANC Meeting: Inauguration Madness!

It was a dark and stormy night, but that didn't stop a standing-room-only crowd from attending the first ANC2f meeting of 2009, and with good reason: with the inauguration now less than 2 weeks away, and a multitude of questions surrounding issues related to parking, business operating hours and security the community has a lot of interest in the discussion and decisions that will be coming down this evening.

We've already written about the decision by the ANC not to protest the applications of businesses in good standing with the ANC who wish to partake in the extra hours for the inauguration, so I'll cover some of the other issues that came up at Wednesday night's meeting.

People Who Live Near the Convention Center Are $%#@ed

Sorry to be Debbie Downer here, but that was really my only take-away from the information we were getting this evening. It seems that, due to the 400-or-so inaugural balls that will be held at the Convention Center, the Secret Service will be setting up security checkpoints around the Convention Center and areas where Obama will be showing up (such as Union Station); residents in these areas must provide proof that they live in area: a driver's license, utility bill, mail, etc. will suffice. If you have people from out of town staying with you, you will need to stay with them, otherwise they won't be allowed into the secure area. Mike Bernardo mentioned that during past inaugurations there have been problems with residents getting to their own homes without IDs. In other words, don't expect the Secret Service to follow you back to your house and watch you try your house key.

The official line from the city is that they are now anticipating 2 million people coming into District--better than the 4 million we had been hearing earlier, but about four times the number of people that typically show up for the 4th of July celebration. The District will be closing several bridges and making one all bridges pedestrian- and bicycle-only into and out of Virginia.

Also, if you live in Logan Circle--or pretty much any place in the central city--parking is likely going to be a nightmare for you. In case you've been living in your cave (or poorly lit English basement) for the last three months, you've probably heard that the parking restrictions in the central city will run north to P Street, which is bad news for the people who live south of P and will need to relocate their cars, and for those of us who live north of P who will likely be the recipient of said cars. Our suggestion: park your car by next Wednesday, and don't touch it. Otherwise, you may end up having to park in Deanwood or something. And nobody wants that.

Believe it nor not, there were other topics addressed other than inaugural/end-of-life-as-we-know-it issues, including

Dustin Cole's Vendetta Against Whole Foods

OK, we'll admit that "vendetta" might be a tad strong, but really--the oddest point in the night had to be when Commissioner Cole interrupted the otherwise-routine approval of the agenda to request that an item be added to discuss Whole Foods' "violation of the District's single-sales ban." Visibly perplexed, ANC Chairman Charles Reed inquired with Commissioner Cole how he knew tht Whole Foods was violating the single-sales ban.

"Because I've seen them." came the response.

At this point, two things were noted by Reed and Commissioner Matt Raymond: that the ANC and Whole Food were parties to an agreement that allowed Whole Foods an exemption to enforcement of the single-sales ban, and that ABRA was respecting that agreement.

It's unclear whether or not Cole was aware of the agreement before moving to have the item added to the agenda, but at this point it should have been obvious that a discussion on the matter that evening would serve no real purpose. Undeterred, Cole pressed on, asking for the item to remain because we wanted a "discussion" followed by "possible action" against Whole Foods. Reed inquired as to whether a representative from Whole Foods had been notified that Cole was planning on raising the issue this evening; Cole responded that he had spoken with the store manager, but had not specifically notified them that a potential for action against the store would arise at the ANC meeting.

More back-and-forth continued, with Raymond reminding the Commission of the importance of "due process" and of having a representative from Whole Foods at the meeting to answer any charges that may be leveled. Reed reiterated that he wasn't sure why there needed to be a discussion to begin with. Still, the discussion pressed on, eating up nearly 15 minutes of time at the meeting.

Ultimately, the issue was tabled until the February meeting. It was truly one of the odder events I've seen transpire at an ANC meeting--and I've seen a number of them. Maybe Cole had a similar experience at Whole Foods as we did, getting a "fresh" turkey for Thanksgiving that ended up being frozen?

"The Space" Is Not a Good Neighbor

"Imagine coming home on Thursday evening and knowing that you won't sleep again until Sunday."

That was testimony from one of the many neighbors of Shaw nightclub "The Space" who came to protest the club owner's behavior--and ABRA's lack of enforcement against it.

It seems that the "private" club operating at 9th and and N streets isn't quite so private. The club is over-capacity most evenings, ignores noise regulations and, perhaps most annoyingly, operates an illegal outdoor deck the resides mere feet from the bedroom windows of its neighbors. The owner of the club is an Australian with a bad temper (he has been arrested for assaulting one of the neighbors whom he thought called the police against him) who doesn't--or doesn't care to--have a good grasp of the protocol necessary for keeping his club operational. (For instance, he failed to show at an ABRA hearing on the aforementioned deck, leading to a dismissal of the application.)

Even more infuriating was the fact that an ABRA inspector visited the property over the summer, took pictures, admitted that there appeared to be violations, then...nothing.

Unfortunately, problems arose when the discussion turned to potential actions that the ANC could take against the club. The voluntary agreement that the residents brought with them was between their building's landlord and the club owner--the ANC was not party to it. It could not be determined whether or not the ANC had an agreement with the Space.

Everyone agreed that the current situation was untenable, and the ANC agreed to move forward to find out if they did have a VA with the club, and also to explore possibilities for filing an emergency protest to get the club's liquor license pulled immediately. Chairman Reed however was not optimistic about this line of action, and wanted the ANC first to determine the existence of a VA with the club and to follow all proper channels so that ABRA "wouldn't have a reason NOT to follow through on a protest."

This matter will certainly be raised again, likely at the February meeting. In the meantime, The Space's neighbors are looking at a minimum of several ore weeks of obnoxious and antagonistic behavior from the club. We'll be following up with a later post on this issue as things develop.

There were other matters addressed at the meeting, but by this point Mr. 14thandyou--who hadn't yet had dinner--needed to excuse himself from the proceedings. It was certainly a fun night for all involved...

Queen of Sheba Gets a Decision...No, Wait...

The longer this drags on, the more ridiculous the District's alcohol licensing process looks. As many of you may (or may not) know, the Queen of Sheba restaurant had their ABRA hearing yesterday, which apparently went on and on and on and on. Campbell Johnson and Mary Sutherland and their henchmen, er, fellow protestants were there. 5th and Oh graciously showed up to support the Queen (thanks!), but aside from him and Alex Padro (who, apparently, also gave very supportive and positive testimony) it was simply the Mr. Misgina and his lawyers versus the muckrakers.

Fine, whatever. This decision should be a no-brainer anyway, because the issues the protestants are hanging their hats on are so absurd that you'd think the hearing would have been over before it began. Not so. The hearing went on until almost 5 PM, at which point ABRA declared the hearing over and notified all parties that a decision would be rendered...in two months. Which is patently ridiculous. Two months may seem to be a reasonable time frame for the ABRA folks, but it's two more months of the Queen hemmoraghing money due to their lack of a liquor license. It really gives one pause to think why *any* restaurant owner would want to come into a neighborhood such as Shaw and deal with the grief that has been flung towards Mr. Misgina et al.

Personally, I support continuing the eat-ins to support the Queen until this issue is finally, and mercifully, put to bed. If the various Shaw bloggers could propose a recurring weekly/bi-weekly time to go, I'm sure we could get people to clear their schedules, go enjoy a wonderful meal, and show Mr. Misgina and everyone at the Queen how much the neighborhood *truly* supports him.

A Black Cat Crosses Dee Hunter's Path

I’m picking up where I left off a couple of weeks ago with the Black Cat story . . . After talking to Dee Hunter and Dante Ferrando, I was interested in how differently they each interpreted recent events. Below I’ve written a comparison of their statements. I must admit that I did not ask the gentlemen to address each other’s comments. Read on and see what you think , . .

The Deck
Ferrando expresses that he may or may not build the deck; the potential costs of the project may limit its profitability, and Ferrando might not be permitted by DC to build the structure. Ferrando shares that he is not thrilled about having smokers standing outside of the club because of security issues and possible complaints from neighbors. The deck would be one way for him to provide a smoking space while mitigating the current liabilities of the outdoor smoking space.

Hunter says that he represents residents who take issue with the traffic, noise, and rowdy patrons brought to the area by Black Cat. He also states that there have been “numerous complaints about the current operation.” These factors are what have encouraged him to lead the protest against the deck, which he says will accommodate 450 people and amount to a one third expansion of the club.

Protestants
The major neighborhood protestant is ANC 1B. According to Hunter, once they knew of Black Cat’s plans, “ANC 1B quickly reacted and came out against the proposal.” Hunter also says that he met with about 50 residents of the area about the issue.

Two ANCs, 2F and 2C, have, at the urging of the 1B Commission, written letters in opposition to the modification. Hunter tells me that a P Street group opposed to the modification had circulated a petition and collected 100 signatures from project opponents. However, they were not able to register on time as protestants. As mentioned before, Commissioner Phil Spalding did not support the protest. Dee Hunter considers Spalding’s support of Black Cat “amazing because his constituents are opposed.”

Ferrando seemed disappointed that ANC 2F would unanimously vote to support the protest without having seen the plans for the deck. Ferrando is somewhat limited in what he can say about the protest because he has not been provided a witness list from the ABC Board though the protestants’ presentations are set to begin on September 19^th.

Mediation
When a liquor license is protested, ABRA asks that the parties involved engage in mediation. What is clear from both Ferrando and Hunter is that the mediation between Black Cat and ANC 1B was not particularly fruitful. Both do, however, agree that the protestants from the ANC would drop their protest if Black Cat would not serve alcohol or have music on the deck. The way Ferrando sees it, “the opposition didn’t really have any interest in a voluntary agreement. There were some mediated discussions. It wasn’t in the realm of compromise.”

Ferrando was sure to say that most people in the neighborhood “have been pretty reasonable.” He says that he has met with residents to discuss his plans and that he’s redesigned the deck many times to accommodate their input. Contrary to Hunter’s statement, Ferrando says that the club has no formal complaints against it right now. As a good neighbor and a good businessman, Ferrando would like to keep it that way. He says of his possible plans for the deck, “it’s a pretty thoroughly researched project . . . . there is no motivation for me to do it and do it poorly.”

To accommodate concerns about noise and sightlines, Ferrando would partially enclose the space. He must, however, leave the area somewhat open in order to comply with the provisions of the DC smoking ban. (Other establishments have had partially enclosed spaces sited as being in violation of the ban.) Currently planned noise-dampening provisions include eight foot high soundproof walls. Music in this space would be limited to what Ferrando called “background music,” and sound tests indicated that the music would not be audible in all portions of the deck area. As for his motivation to have a bar on the roof deck, it seems to be a business decision; building the deck requires an investment in architectural plans, permitting, and construction, and selling alcohol helps pay those costs.

Continuing Conflict
Based on Hunter’s statements, he either does not know about the details of the deck plans or does not believe Ferrando’s description to be truthful. Hunter says that Ferrando “has no plans [and] does nothing for the community” Hunter was critical of the way that Ferrando has handled the ABC Board hearings by attending without a lawyer and by “tying up” the time of the protestants. Hunter also insisted that Ferrando has “incurred no expense in this matter.”

In contrast Ferrando states that it “costs a lot of money to fight a hearing.” He also says the liquor license modification process has been ongoing for over a year and may take another six to 12 months to resolve. Interestingly, his opponents question whether the deck is really planned as a smoking space and they use as evidence the fact that the smoking ban has already been in place for eight months. However, it seems possible that Ferrando began considering the deck well before the ban’s effective date.

In Summary . . .
Ferrando, though he has the support of his ANC Comissioner and some neighborhood residents, may not win approval to serve alcohol on a rooftop deck. He feels that the “ABC tries to force you into a settlement,” and he sounds unlikely to want to revisit negotiations with ANC 1B. He also says that when a credible protest is filed that “even if you are completely convinced that you’re going to win,” that the outcome of the hearings is uncertain. Yet, Ferrando expresses a desire to be a good corporate citizen. He agrees that it is reasonable for neighborhood groups to ask businesses for their cooperation on such matters as keeping their property clean and preventing noise from being heard outside. He just wishes they would choose to enforce adherence the goals rather than prescribe the means for achieving those goals.

Hunter expresses strong doubts that the license modification will be granted. He stated “it would amaze me if the Board would grant permission with so much opposition from the neighborhood.” And for his part, Hunter appears to be doing the best he can to represent that opposition and to seek others who may be opposed.

100% Mexico - What will it be?

Many of you familiar with the 14th St. corridor no doubt know about the vacant storefront on the 1600 block that was formerly the "100% Mexico" store. The store vacated the premises over the winter/early spring, and soon thereafter a notice of a liquor license application was posted inside the door.

That was in March. Since then, nada. So, does anyone have any info on this? Any idea on what the space might become? If I recall correctly, the petitioner was an LLC of some kind, but beyond that I don't have any other info. My apologies for not providing a snapshot or something, I neglected to bring my camera with me this morning.

Inquiring minds want to know...