ANC 6D remains adamantly opposed to the flexibility idea--or at least to the idea that this flexibility would then allow a possible all-affordable building next to a market-rate condo building on Square 767--saying it "would circumvent the theme of HOPE VI revitalization and the goal of the PUD."

But Zoning Commission vice-chair Marcie Cohen disagreed, saying that the success of Capper's revitalization is that "the area is mixed income, the neighborhood is mixed income," and that she doesn't have a problem "when public housing is a single project within a mixed-income neighborhood." Noting that some of Capper's previous residents were relocated from the site now more than 10 years ago, Cohen said that "the people who have been displaced have a right to come back"--and given that "financing vehicles are now driving housing policy," meaning that getting affordable housing units financed has become so difficult--the Housing Authority has in her view come up with a plan that is "satisfactory," and should be able to go ahead and "secure the proper financing, build the project, and get some of the people back if they choose."

Her fellow commissioners concurred, with both Robert Miller and Michael Turnbull also noting that all projects on the three remaining residential squares at Capper will need to come to the Zoning Commission for review before moving forward.

And in its response to the ANC 6D letter, the Housing Authority emphasized this point, saying that the concerns raised by 6D will be addressed at that time, and that the reviews "will also demonstrate that the design of the buildings and distribution of the units in those applications are consistent with the PUD's overall goal of providing a vibrant, mixed-use and mixed-income community."

This case also will allow 30 of the Capper affordable units to be relocated to Square 737, to be included in both the 800 New Jersey/Whole Foods building and the eventual third-phase residential building on the eastern portion of that block.

My previous post on this zoning case gives plenty of additional detail if you desire.

The eventual height of the DC Housing Authority building has become clearer in recent weeks with the construction of the elevator shaft/stairwells, but while the rendering of the finished product gives some sense of the size, it's hard to adequately capture in photographs at this stage its length along L Street, especially since it also runs downhill.

But give me credit for at least trying, with shots from all four corners, though admittedly one is actually a stiched-together image of two photos from the southwest side. (Can you tell which one?)

Other Capper-related projects have not gone to the CFA, but somehow this one has ended up there, meaning that a permit for construction of the building past the foundation can't be approved by DCRA until the CFA signs off.

The Housing Authority has prepared a lovely booklet for the commission with the details of the project, including renderings, proposed layouts, construction materials, and more, along with a cover letter from DCHA executive director Adrianne Todman.

There's no buried announcement of an operator for the building's programs and activities, but the two documents together make for a handy (DCHA-prepared) summary of the project if one might be wanting to get up to speed on it and are finding other information sources wanting.

*Just trying to accommodate the million different phraseologies that are out there for this project.

The request has been altered a bit since I last wrote about it in February, but the gist remains the same.

First, DCHA is looking to move 30 affordable units outside of the Capper PUD boundaries and onto the block where WC Smith is developing the Park Chelsea, 800 New Jersey, and a third as-yet unnamed residential building.

Second, instead of being held to the originally approved unit counts on the blocks known as squares 767, 768, and 739 (as described in the fuzzy graphic above that I snagged from the Office of Planning report), the Housing Authority requests the flexibility to change the configuration of the 206 total affordable (ACC) units on each square while not ever going below 15% of the total number of units for that square.

Agency representatives testified at length about the progress at Capper, including that the community center is finally underway. But they told the commission that the current "financing atmosphere," especially for mixed-income residential projects, is increasingly constraining, and so having some flexibility built in could make it easier to work with potential development partners and financial institutions on designing projects before coming to the commission for Stage 2 approvals. (The four-year process and convoluted solution that included a "mountain of documents" to secure financing the mixed-income Lofts at Capitol Quarter was used as an example.)

However, it's been known for a year that one of the creative scenarios that DCHA has come up with to move forward on Square 767 would be to sell half of the block to EYA (developers of the Capitol Quarter townhomes) so that a market-rate condo building can be built, and then taking those proceeds to fund a second building on the block that would be all affordable units.

And while this particular zoning case does not specifically cover that not-yet-finalized plan, and putting aside that any plans for that block will have to come back to the Zoning Commission for approval before moving forward, a number of Capper/Capitol Quarter residents along with incoming ANC 6D07 representative Meredith Fascett used the hearing as a forum to make clear their displeasure with the idea of segregating incomes in separate buildings, saying that it violates the spirit of the entire Hope VI mixed-income vision that the Capper redevelopment has been based on. (Fascett's written testimony is here.)

David Cortiella of DCHA did say that the agency believes many of the issues with the two buildings/two incomes plan on Square 767 "will be addressed" once a "community engagement process" about the project gets underway, specifically mentioning a "shared courtyard" for the two buildings so that a "more friendly environment takes shape."

The zoning commissioners did not seem overly troubled by the requests covered the current zoning case (though Michael Turnbull made sure to say that they "will look very carefully" at future second-stage submittals).

The Office of Planning supports the flexibility request--however, DCHA is still wanting to further modify the modifications that OP put forward in its most recent report, both because of some concerns about the wording about the units to be constructed by WC Smith but also because the Housing Authority wants to come up with a cap on the number of ACC units on each square that is different from OP's suggested 50-percent cap.

It's expected that the commission will vote on this case at its January 26 meeting; if and when this case receives its final approval, there would then be a vote on a concurrent case to grant a five-year extension to the Capper PUD (which I didn't even talk about here because no one is reading at this point anymore anyway).

One other Capper-related tidbit coming out of the hearing is that movement is continuing on the planned 171-unit rental building on the south side of L between 2nd and 3rd, with work on the financing "well underway" (helped no doubt by getting a cut of a $142 million funding pot.)

(Editor's Note: Leading off with a convoluted post about zoning after an extended holiday layoff is not optimal.)

The building, as yet unnamed and generally just referred to by some variation of the oh-so-attractive "Square 769N Residential" moniker, is planned for the northern part of the block bounded by 2nd Place, 3rd, L, and M, next door to the recently discussed 250 M Street office building. It will be 11 stories, and will include 34 units of public housing in its 171 rental units. There will also be about 4,100 square feet of ground-floor retail. (The above image shows the block as seen from Canal Park, with the apartment building at left and 250 M at right.)

This funding is not enough to get the building's construction jump-started, but a) it's better than no funding at all and b) it probably helps move the process toward full funding forward.

It has already spent plenty of time in Zoning Land, having received its second-stage PUD approval back in 2009 followed by time extensions in 2011 and 2013.

This is one of four** large mixed-income apartment buildings still to be built as part of Capper's redevelopment, with two more planned for the other blocks along the east side of Canal Park plus one on the old trash transfer site at New Jersey and K.

* For sticklers, this award is part of the 2014 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) awards from the Housing Production Trust Fund.

** It could be five, since the Housing Authority is looking at splitting some units out from one planned mixed-income rental building (not this one!) into a second market-rate condo building. But there has been no public indication of movement one way or the other on that, and a planned Zoning hearing this fall has been pushed back to at least early 2015.

It states that DCHA is "seeking proposals from qualified service providers with a broad experience in providing programs, fundraising, property maintenance, asset management, and community outreach in a mixed income environment,"

Responses are due on Friday, Nov. 21.

Earlier this year the Housing Authority ran a community "engagement process" to come up with a series of recommendations on what sort of programming and activites the neighborhood would like to see at this building, which presumably/hopefully/possibly whichever operator is chosen will use to guide their plans. And this gives me an excuse to post the final copy of the report.

UPDATE, 10/29: It took a while, but the RFP itself is finally available.

It's just a little better than the one we've been seeing up to now, which I first posted in October of 2005.

And since I failed you by not getting to the event (just add it to my ever-growing List of Shame), here's the Housing Authority's press release on it.

(Though one thing not in this rendering that was at least hinted at in the old one: the Marines' parking garage.)

This will get the structure itself underway, but it's still not yet known who will operate the building, or exactly what sorts of programs and offerings there will be. A few months back the process completed for determining what the neighborhood is looking for from the new space, but full clarity probably won't arrive until closer to the building's opening, in latelatelate 2015 or early 2016.

UPDATE: Dang it, I forgot to use the phrase "shovel-wielding VIPs."

It will kick off with a showing of the 2007 documentary Chocolate City, which tells the stories of families displaced when the plans went forward a decade ago to replace the old Capper/Carrollsburg housing project with the mixed-income Capitol Quarter townhouse development.

Afterward, there will be oral histories from some of the neighborhood's former and returning residents, along with some panel discussions.

There will also be activities for the kids and refreshments.

No RSVP necessary, but there's a Facebook event page for more information and to indicate if you're going, should you choose.

The recommendations are:

* A 7,000-square-foot gymnasium with basketball court that can also be divided into two smaller courts when needed;

* A 3,600-square-foot day care center, which would also include a secured outdoor play area;

* Three multipurpose fitness rooms (for yoga classes or the like):

* Two multipurpose classrooms;

* One individual fitness area, which could include treadmills and weights; and

* A small "soft play area" for little kids.

The recommendations are not a written-in-stone marching order, however. Soon the Housing Authority will be putting out an RFP to find the organization that will run the community center (though apparently we're now calling it a "community building," because #branding). The operator would then have "flexibility" in what it offers, while ostensibly guided by the survey results.

There were 473 responses to the survey, and the meeting slides show both the demographic breakdown of respondents as well as the top vote-getters in both fitness and "enrichment" activities.

The slides also include conceptual drawings of how the two-story building could be laid out to handle the recommended offerings, though it was stressed that the operator will be making the final decisions on layout and whatnot. (You may remember that there was at one time a basement planned for the building, but it's now been removed from the design.)

Attendees at the meeting did not rise up in fire-breathing opposition to the presentation, though concerns were raised about the lack of garden space, the seeming preference of fitness activities over learning/cultural/enrichment activities, and the need for space and kitchen access to accommodate private events like kids' birthday parties.

Even though the consultant's report is due to DCHA next week, the team still wants to hear comments, if you've got them.

The slides also said that the groundbreaking for the building is "about to happen," which of course translates to JDLand Speak as "Any Minute Now."