McMillan Advisory Group

August 14, 2014

Mayors Agent
Historic Preservation Office

Subject:

With a quorum present, the McMillan Advisory Group (MAG) has voted, by a count of 10 in favor, 2
opposed, and with 2 abstentions, to reject the claim that the Vision McMillan Partners, LLC and Office of
the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (the Applicant) Planned Unit Development
(PUD) master plan constitutes special merit to justify the level of demolition included as part of the
project.
According to D.C. Code Ann. 6-1104(b):
Prior to making the finding required by subsection (e) of this section, the Mayor may refer the application to the Historic
Preservation Review Board for a recommendation, but shall so refer all applications that are not subject to review by the
Commission of Fine Arts under the Old Georgetown Act ( 6-1201 et seq.). The Mayor shall consider any recommendation by the
Review Board or by the Commission of Fine Arts pursuant to such referral.
The Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) on October 31, 2013:
Determined that the proposal will result in substantial demolition, as defined in the preservation regulations, and therefore
inconsistent with the purposes of the Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act
Under the Act, only the Mayor of the District of Columbia (or his Agent) may issue a permit to demolish
an historic landmark or structure within an historic district, and only where he has determined that the
issuance of the demolition permit is necessary in the public interest, or where failure to issue a permit
would result in unreasonable economic hardship to the owner of the historic property. Necessary in
the public interest is defined by the Act as a project that is: (1) consistent with the purposes of this
subchapter as set forth in 6-1101(b); or (2) necessary to allow the construction of a project of special
merit.
In the Mayors Agent Notice of Public Hearing, it states:
The Applicant's claim is that the issuance of the raze permit is necessary in the public interest to allow the construction of a project
of special merit.
Special merit is defined by the Act to mean:

A plan or building having significant benefits to the District of Columbia or to the community by virtue of exemplary architecture,
specific features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority for community services.
However, the Act does not define the terms exemplary architecture, specific features of land
planning, and social or other benefits, having a high priority for community services other than prior
decisions to indicate that factors which are common to all projects are not considered as special merit.
To this end, we respectfully believe that the project does not provide factors that are not uncommon to
projects of this nature nor are the benefits afforded the public necessitated by the scale of demolition
proposed by this project.
Discussion of Exemplary Architecture
In our opinion, exemplary architecture is to be both cohesive with the site and of an unprecedented
nature. The townhomes schematic drawings crafted by Lessard Design on behalf of EYA mirror both in
appearance and architecture three other developments either in construction or already constructed by
EYA: the Mosaic District in Fairfax, the Arts District in Hyattsville and Grosvenor Heights in Bethesda.
Moreover, the proposed medical facility to be built on Parcel 1 and multi-family structures proposed for
Parcels 2 and 4 do not compliment the scale or character of the existing buildings nor retain the sense of
space of the site.
Discussion of Social or Other Benefits Having a High Priority for Community Services
As agreed upon in a signed letter of commitment between the Applicant, the District (through the
Deputy Mayors Office of Planning and Economic Development (ODMPED)), and the McMillan Advisory
Group (MAG) and reflected in the Terms of Concurrence:
VMP, the District and MAG commit to using the Office of Plannings Summary of Recommendations for site [McMillan Filtration site]
Revitalization February 2002, and its recommendations, along with any pertinent zoning and historic regulations for the site, as a
baseline and/or blueprint for revitalization.
Furthermore:
To develop in conjunction with MAG, ANC 5C [ANC 5E], ANC 1B, Ward 5, Ward 1 City Council representation, and a representative
for the Chairperson of the City Councils Committee on Economic Development, a detailed community amenities package
In signing this letter of commitment, all parties agreed that:
The terms of this LOC shall be binding upon VMP, the Master Developer, and their prospective successors and assigns.
According to the PUD filed by the Applicant, a series of social or other benefits will be provided, to
include:
Parks, Open Space, and Landscaping: Approximately 500,940 square feet of public open space
comprised of the South Park, the South Service Court, the North Service Court, the healing
gardens and preserved Filtration Cell 14. The Olmstead Walk shall be handicapped accessible
and include benches along the walk. The South Park shall include seating areas with at least four

picnic tables, an amphitheater, a childrens playground, a spray-ground, and outdoor adult
fitness area, and a pond and open lawns.
Historic Preservation: Rehabilitate and renovate the North and South Service Courts, including
all 20 sand storage bins, four regulator houses, at least one sand washer, eleven filter bed
portals and portions of the service court walls, and the preservation of Cells 14 and 28. Re-
establish the Olmstead Walk around the perimeter of the site and seek permission to obtain and
install the McMillan Fountain.
Retail and Grocery Store: Provide total retail/service space of approximately 97,770 square feet
of gross floor areas to include a full-service grocery store.
Community Center: Provide a two-story community center of 17,500 square feet to include a
swimming pool, multipurpose room with kitchen, fitness studio, and gallery space.
Affordable Housing: 85 senior rental units for seniors earning 50 to 60% AMI, 25 rental units for
households earning 80% AMI, 9 townhomes for purchase for households earning 50% AMI, and
13 townhomes for purchase for households earning 80% AMI.
In addition, the Applicant indicates a series of other social benefits generated by this development with
impact for the District to include: increased healthcare facilities in the District, employment
opportunities and reliance on District residents to perform some of those jobs, training of District
employees in advance of those employment opportunities, participation of District business in the
executing of development contracts, and the creation of additional housing in the District to meet a
growing housing demand.
While we acknowledge that the PUD proposes a series of social and community-specific benefits, we do
not believe that such benefits are of a high-priority for the community nor do the proposed benefits
warrant the extent of demolition proposed by this project.
As already stipulated, in the terms on concurrence the Applicant committed to using the Office of
Plannings Summary of Recommendations for site [McMillan Filtration site] Revitalization February, 2002
as a blueprint for development of the site. This report captures the high-priority areas of the community
as evidenced by the significant level of community participation and testimonies submitted to the
Zoning Commission. In this document, areas of high-priority include:
Parks, Open Space, and Landscaping: High priorities for the retention of open space and
creation of a park include the development of at least 50% of the Site as publicly accessible
recreation/open space, provision for both active and passive recreation uses, preservation of
significant existing views into and out from the Site and high standards for open space
maintenance, landscape design, accessibility, and security. The proposed plan does allow for
passive recreation uses, proposes high standards for landscape design and allocates nearly 35%
of the site for recreation/open space. While missing the goal of 50% publicly accessible
recreation and open space, this plan also fails to retain the existing views both into and out from
the Site. In particular, the erection of the medical office facility and multifamily units would
restrict key views such as the external view looking northeast across the site to the Basilica of

the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception and the internal view looking southeast from
northwest corner of site.
Historic Preservation: High priorities for preservation include the restoration of key above
ground elements of the site, use of stable cells as a historic record of the Site and incorporation
of references to any cell structures that are to be completely or partially removed. The proposed
plan does take steps to restore the above ground elements, but it takes little care to adaptively
re-use the stable underground cells. Moreover, there is little understanding as to the extent to
which structures will be preserved and what their uses will be.
Scale, Density and Uses: High priorities for the scale of development for the site were low and
moderate intensity uses and moderate density within the site that includes publicly accessible
open space, a cultural destination (museum and/or memorial), neighborhood serving and
destination enhancing retail, and housing. Furthermore, several uses of the site were found
undesirable for the site and could therefore be deemed a high-priority detriment to the
community. These include uses that require a large amount of surface parking, high rise office,
high rise residential, and hospital/medical facilities. The PUD proposes the creation of a 130-foot
medical office building, two 110-foot multifamily and office building, and the creation of nearly
2,900 parking spaces, grossly deviating from the high-priorities for development of the site.
The terms of concurrence also stipulate that the Applicant is to work with the MAG, ANC 1B and the
surrounding community in crafting a series of amenities, not simply ANC 5E (then ANC 5C). From the
outset, both the Applicant and ANC 5E commissioners have stated in public that negotiations would only
take place between the Applicant and ANC 5E.
As such, the social benefits were derived in violation of the terms of concurrence as the MAG was
denied an opportunity to develop and agree upon a community amenities package in conjunction with
ANC 5E and the Applicant. This may, in part, account for the lack of high-priority benefits included in
the proposal for development of the site.

Concluding Thoughts
The McMillan site provides the community with a sense of open space in an increasingly developed city.
The site provides the District with a reminder of what a true public works project can look like.
The PUD submitted by the Applicant both violates the suggested uses of the site, as defined in the
report, as well as key preservation aspects of the report, to include the preservation and adaptive reuse
of the underground cells as well as the sense of open space and views within the site. These items rest
at the foundation of the strongest desires of the community for this site, to revitalize the land but not at
the expense of the neighborhood. While the benefits proposed by the project are commendable, the
scale of development and demolition the benefits are to justify is simply out of line with the needs of
the surrounding community and thus outweigh the benefits themselves.

We disagree that the proposed demolition is necessary in order to construct a park, community center,
and supporting retail for the community. Specifically, the Applicant has never presented a series of
proposals that are economically viable for the community to work from. The Applicant has also failed to
present a proposal with the goal of additional preservation of the underground cells nor shown any
effort to secure funding for the retention of additional cells. To this end, the MAG has repeatedly
requested the Applicant provide concrete financial figures to support claims that such preservation is
economically infeasible and that such scale of development is an economic necessity. Part of the
concern is that the District has not released a solicitation for vertical development of the site nor does it
intend to. It has not been proven that the only way such housing could be achieved was through
demolition.
Moreover, we are troubled by the fact that the Applicant relies upon general goals of the District to
justify this project as one of special merit, but that these goals are not tied to the specific location of the
proposed project.
Based upon these facts, we ask that the Mayors Agent reject the claim that this project is one of special
merit and not allow the proposed scale of demolition.