1) Addressed a change in the voluntary concessions regarding the commercial space (dropped from 1,800 to 1,500 sq. ft. due to design changes).

2) That the project would be developed with substantial conformance with the prelim site plan. We had requested and received some significant design changes and wanted to make sure they remained including how the Wilden (350) and the McKeever (360) will fit together.

3) That the reduction in parking requested could not be for less than .5 spaces for seniors and one space per 300 sq ft for the commercial space. Again, we have already spent time on parking and did not want to start over at site plan.

4) That no Certificate of Occupancy (CO) be issued for the Wilden unless the parking at the McKeever is completed and ready. (Our attempt to tie the buildings closer together!)

Number 4 turned out to be a sticking point for The Community Builders (TCB). They must have COs on deadline (12/31/11) to receive the tax incentives. Therefore, potential investors told TCB they would not invest if the COs are dependent on another building being completed on time. At that point, FCHC’s council, Dave Lasso, requested we add a modification that they could use temporary/offsite parking for COs in the event the McKeever fails behind on their construction schedule. When we attempted to define temporary, we were asked not to at this point. They were fearful that a rigid definition would also be rejected by investors.

We asked the staff if temporary/offsite parking could even be used for a CO and if any suitable parking even existed and the staff was unsure. Also, there was no way to craft language that the investors would approve without their input. So we punted it to the council to allow staff time to research it and discuss language with the applicant.

Our actions on a recommendation have no weight other than the ability to push the council to need a super majority if we recommend against. The council can reject, ignore or keep our proposed conditions. They are just recommendations. The Council kept our conditions with new language in Number 4 as the PC requested defining temporary as 180 days or less (the staff worked with the applicant to develop a definition all could accept). Let me repeat temporary has been defined as 180 days and the location of the parking must be approved by the city.

Additionally, with our comments on the financial aspects of the project (TR10-9-1 and TR10-9-2), we asked that language be added saying if Winter Hill Apartments are sold in the future that FCHC would use the proceeds to pay off the loan or put the money in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to cover the loan payments (to take the burden off the general fund). We also asked for closer financial ties between the Wilden and McKeever regarding the closing of the loan and language regarding potential loan default be added. These changes were accepted by Council.

See page 12 for our recommendations for changes to the financial agreement that were accepted by council:
http://fallschurch-va.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=105&meta_id=5948

As the City’s Cooperative Agreement Housing Partner since 1981, FCHC has long appreciated that some community members choose to remain principled and unmoveable in their opposition to the use of tax dollars for the provision and/or leveraged subsidy of housing opportunities that most localities set goals and make plans to assist for income challenged folks who choose to live where they work or remain during retirement years. We have never minded hearing those honest and principled statements in response to any of the work plans and projects we have brought forward to City leadership and its public arena over the last many years of trying to create housing in response to our City’s demographic and people needs. It comes with our housing mission territory.

Now as another sage in my life would say, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”. We look forward to our next round of public meetings in pursuit of a combined Site Plan for permitting the demolition and redevelopment of the 350/360 S. Washington St properties as contracted with City Council on March 22. We trust that as the combined plan takes shape its actions will speak louder than all the words expended in getting to the place we are today.

We are humbly grateful for the wide base of community support we do enjoy and trust that FCHC, The Community Builders and The Young Group will add a few more supporters to that list from those who honestly are taking a “wait and see” approach to our achievements being the right plan for our Council to have committed to support by a 6-1 margin.

Thank you again, Mr. Sze, for your consistent and continued support. Carol Jackson, FCHC Executive Director.

PS I had not read all these comments prior nor since March 22nd. My door and phone lines remain open to any who have expressed interest in knowing more easily the answers to particular questions–many of which are answered by the Council packet produced for the March 22 hearing, but many are admittedly confusing to grasp as the terms of the SE and financial commitments were revised after the Planning Commission hearing on March 15. The 360 garage is tied to City $2 mil financing. Short term parking off site for The Wilden to obtain its needed COs will be permitted no more than 180 days in the unforeseen short term circumstance that 360 garage is not occupable based on currently unanticipated, Murphy’s law construction delay.

In your next to last comment you stated that the Wilden and the construction of the structured parking were tied together; actually they aren’t.

As Linda mentioned the sheer volume of changes regarding site plans, Office construction, structured parking with an office building, without an office building, etc. make it very difficult to see under which shell the pea is located.

The Planning Commission, at its March 15, has effectively pre-approved a waiver of assured on site parking for the Wilden project. That is, elderly residents of Winter Hill can be transferred to Wilden without assurance of on site parking.

Quoting from paragraph 4 of City Council document 10 (a) (1) (TR10-09)-1 SE preliminary site plan (3-4-10) the Planning Commission in its summary stated, “If the structured parking is not qualified for a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) at the time the Wilden building and site are qualified for a CO, that the Council craft language to allow for temporary, short term, off site parking”.

Since the Planning Commission did not define, by location or time limit, the concept of “temporary, short term off site parking” it is not clear when or if parking for the Wilden project will ever be available.

I would have attached a link but the City’s website is not functioning properly.

Ira J. Kaylin

And my bigger point is that there is quite a bit of available office space in the City – we wouldn’t need to lease space for a premium in a brand new building if we need to move some folks out of City Hall for a while.

http://fallschurch-va.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id-2&clip_id-84&meta_id-5243

notes “public tenant to reduce pressure on City Hall CIP” as a future option for the office building. Unclear if this has gone away; unclear who “public tenant” would be. That’s part of the problem for anyone trying to understand the scope of the taxpayers’ committment and costs associated with the project — its a moving target that changes with the wind. Now a structured garage, now surface parking, now no Wilden without the office building, now a Wilden possible without the office building. The office building exists as a “vision”, or is it more an apparition? Gotta hurry so we can collect those federal and state funds and start construction by June; no time to clarify. It’s project design and development by the seat of the pants.

The parking will be at 360 whether it’s surface or structured (sounds like it has to be structured or it’s a no-go on the City’s $2M loan) – The Wilden (350) has to plans for parking on their lot – from what I understand.

If there’s enough federal money for parking in other places then sure, spending some down at 360 isn’t terrible. But I have no idea how much federal money there is and how much of it might be spent at 360. If there’s enough to go around then that’s great – but if a potential project crops up near/on Broad Street and we could help close the deal by offering some public parking but we don’t have enough funds because they’ve been spent at 360 then that’s where I’ll be disappointed. I’m not sure who at the City knows all these details and takes them into account when projects are being considered.

As for who might rent Bob’s building – it sounds like the City is out of the mix but keep in mind that “the City” and “the water system” are two different things.

To Andy, my understanding is that the parking deck/office building/Wilden are tied together such that if one fails to come to fruition, they all fail. I am wondering where you heard that the Wilden could use the existing 360 parking – this seems counterintuitive as they do not own that lot. As to where we put public parking, instead of holding out for a single parking garage at Washington/Broad, why not spread the public parking around downtown in the new developments, spreading the federal dollars around with it?

To Linda, I thought that the idea of the city leasing Mr. Young’s building went away weeks ago, and that Mr. Sawner has signed a letter of intent to lease space (15000 sq ft, about half) in the Young building while he redevelops the “500″ buildings.

The article is headed “Science city plan’s projections challenged: revenue estimate among concerns.” The article begins:

“In debates over new development, data are often the most valuable currency, cited to demonstrate a project’s value … But the Washington area’s legions of sophisticated community activists are increasingly reluctant to accept data from local officials, saying the numbers are unreliable.”

Maryland county officials were attempting to sell the development as a potential business development and job-producing mecca that would have a minimal impact on the surrounding community. However, “speaker after speaker at a recent community meeting said the data aren’t telling the real story. [Speakers] are concluding that the … project is too big and too dependent on the not-yet-built [transit project]” and is unlikely to perform as described. The article compares county government economic projections to contradictory conclusions reached by county citizens using the same data used by county officials.

The article concludes: “Some local officials and residents say they are uncertain whose numbers to believe.” Thus, “[t]hey have asked the County Council to either substantially revise the plan or send it back to the Planning Board for reevaluation.”

Sound familiar? I commend the article to the members of the FC City Council and to City taxpayers as a cautionary tale, along with my request that the Council reevaluate the Wilden plan. My efforts to sort through the short- and long-term financing data for the Wilden strongly suggest that the project will be much more costly to taxpayers than city officials might like us to think, and for a very long time.

Supporters of the Wilden project have generally limited their public comments about project financing and its effect on the City budget to the first 2 years, during which construction would be taking place. They claim there would be no effect on the City’s budget. The claim is technically true, at least in the beginning, in that $532,000 will be borrowed from one dedicated City housing fund to pay the debt service costs of the new Affordable Housing Trust (AHT). However, I note from City data that the “borrowed” money is in the form of an interest-free loan that will tie up that $532,000 for 15 years, after which the FCHC will pay back the city housing fund from which it borrowed. During the 15 years, the purchasing value of the money will decrease substantially, and the funds will be unavailable for other affordable housing needs, such as workforce housing.

Supporters of the Wilden project also claim that it will produce income from BPOL taxes and incidental restaurant and other taxes during the construction phase — also true enough. However, it is unclear whether the projections are based on an as yet unsupported assumption that the Wilden and a proposed office building will be built simultaneously. And, of course, once the existing, older office building associated with this plan is demolished, any new revenue would be offset by the loss of tax revenue associated with the demolished building.