Sure, He Can Operate a Nuclear Reactor, But a Dupont Bar?

At an overflow meeting on May 19, Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle voted to protest the tavern application of Saloon 45 (1821 18th Street NW). The tavern, if approved, will operate in the former location of a flower shop. It will also be next door to Bar Charley, whose liquor license was the subject of dispute earlier this year -- see SALM blog post of January 16. Many of the same neighbors who protested Bar Charley were back to oppose Saloon 45.

At the corner of 18th and Swann

The applicant has an unusual background for a prospective bar operator. The ANC gave advice to the aspiring proprietor, but he didn't show any sign he would take it.

Proprietor before the ANC

David Stephens came before ANC2B to plead his case for the bar.

"We just want a quiet neighborhood bar," he said.

Stephens said he would be the sole proprietor of the bar, and that he had no experience running a bar. He said that he had been a nuclear reactor operator on the USS Enterprise, a recently-retired US Navy aircraft carrier.

Washington City Paper reported on April 14 that Stephens was also a professional poker player who had who had placed 45th in the 2013 World Series of Poker, winning more than $185,000. ANC2B did not ask him about this, and Stephens did not volunteer this information at the meeting.

At the meeting, Stephens said the architects would start working on the property next month, and their work would take 6 - 8 weeks. Any work on the exterior will have to be considered (separately from the liquor license application) by the ANC and D.C.'s Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) because 1821 18th Street is in the Dupont Circle Historic District.

"It's going to be a total rebuild," Stephens said. "The exterior is going to change."

After the architects do their work and permits are obtained, Stephens said there would be construction for another 10 weeks. Saloon 45 might be ready to open, if all goes well, in the autumn, but a possible opening by the end of the year was mentioned.

The resolution to protest

1821 18th Street is in ANC2B district 08. ANC2B Chair Will Stephens is the Commissioner for this district. No one at the meeting (including me) seemed to notice that the ANC Commissioner and the applicant had the same (very common) last name, but it seems pretty safe to guess that they are not related.

Will Stephens read a resolution protesting the liquor license application of Saloon 45. According to the resolution, the reasons for the protest include:

• the requested opening hours for Saloon 45 (2am weekdays, 3am weekends) are longer than the hours just negotiated with Bar Charley (11pm weekdays, midnight weekends)
• it would be unfair to Bar Charley, who just negotiated its opening hours with the ANC, to have an abutting competitor with longer hours.
• David Stephens had no track record as a tavern operator
• "there is a substantial concern among neighbors about the loss of retail... to liquor-serving establishments"
• parking issues

A group of 10-15 neighbors, many of them residents of neighboring Swann Street, came to speak against the liquor license application. Many were among the group that was against longer hours for Bar Charley a few months ago. One neighbor said she was forming a "group of five" to protest the liquor license application alongside the ANC before D.C.'s liquor-licensing authorities. A neighbor called the application "detrimental on various levels" and said it would "create additional noise, trash and vandalism".

"This is a residential area, you know," another member of the audience said. "You're not raising a family here, we are."

At one point, a member of the group of protesting neighbors was lamenting the loss of Sandy's Flowers, the previous occupant, who had been a good neighbor. David Stephens revealed that Sandy of Sandy's Flowers was actually a family relation of his. Sandy, who has operated in the location since 1987, had suggested the location as an ideal location for a bar. There seemed to be a short period of surprised silence from the neighbors at this information.

At the end of the discussion, Commissioner Leo Dwyer (district 07) advised Stephens to try working at a bar for a period before deciding to open one. It would be very easy, Dwyer said, to run through a lot of money very quickly due to inexperience.

David Stephens did not respond to Dwyer's suggestion.

All the Commissioners present voted in favor of protesting the liquor license application.

See an article about this same discussion from the blog District Source here.

See a short April 28 article from the blog Popville about Saloon 45 here.

Due to a heavy workload, the full ANC2B had to have two separate meetings this month. The first one was on May 14.

Bar Charley Community Meeting: 14 Against, 3 For

A community meeting took place at the Dupont Circle Hotel last night, January 15, to discuss the application by Bar Charley (1825 18th Street NW) to extend its liquor license hours. Elected and non-elected government officials, Bar Charley management, and representatives of community groups all attended, but no compromise seemed on the horizon.

Bar Charley is seeking permission to stay open three hours later, seven days a week -- until 2am Monday to Thursday, and 3am Friday, Saturday, and the day before holidays. These are the normal hours of operation for liquor-serving establishments in D.C., although not in the neighborhood where Bar Charley is located. Bars in this neighborhood often stop serving at 11pm Monday to Thursday, and midnight Friday, Saturday, and the day before holidays, or earlier.

Bar Charley is located between Swann and T Streets

I counted 14 individuals who spoke against the request to extend Bar Charley's hours, and three individuals who spoke for.

Bar Charley is in district 08 of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle. The ANC Commissioner for this district is Will Stephens, who is also the chair of ANC2B. On his blog, Stephens explained that the purpose of the meeting was "to have a more full discussion than is possible at an ANC meeting, where ... there is often not any opportunity to discuss items for more than about 15 – 20 minutes maximum."

At the meeting, Bar Charley co-owner Jackie Greenbaum said, "We have a bunch of people who are supportive. We've gotten a lot of signatures from a lot of people."

But very few of these people were present at the meeting, and the anti-Bar Charley forces were able to muster their troops. Representatives of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association (DCCA) and a group of 105 people, both of which have standing to protest Bar Charley's application before D.C.'s liquor licensing authorities, showed up to state their continued opposition to extended opening hours.

Many people who were against the extension of Bar Charley's opening hours felt it necessary to preface their remarks by stating they were not anti-business in general or against Bar Charley in particular. A sample of remarks:

• "I have seen the neighborhood changed. We have paddy wagons in the street. This summer I could not believe the noise."
• "Nobody in this area is anti-business. It's just that three in the morning is anti-us."
• "We disagree with the hours. They are not conducive to a sane and happy neighborhood. People work, people go to school. They need to get some rest."
• "You told the [Washington] Post that you wanted to be part of the neighborhood. We need to have an agreement. You need to please us. You're losing a substantial chunk of the people here."
• "We are very uncomfortable with the clients that you're likely to have at later hours."

A woman identified as the longest continuous resident of the neighborhood, living in the 1800 block of New Hampshire Avenue since 1954, also declared herself against extending the liquor-service hours.

Attempts at compromise solutions went nowhere. A suggestion to extend liquor-serving hours for one additional hour met objection from both sides. A suggestion to put off the decision for a year while "we [the community] get to know you" similarly went nowhere.

The next step may take place on February 11. On this date, D.C.'s liquor-licensing authorities will attempt to begin mediation between Bar Charley and the three groups officially protesting longer liquor-service hours, i.e., ANC2B, the DCCA, and the group of 105.

The application for extended hours was also discussed at November 13, 2013, meeting of ANC2B -- see SALM post of November 18, 2013 and a November 14, 2013 article from the blog Barred in DC.

ANC2B, Bar Charley, and the Group of Five

November 18, 3:30pm - Note: In the title and some places in this article, I mistakenly wrote that the name of the bar was "Bar Charlie". Apologies for the error. Thanks to IMGoph for pointing this out. (This blogging platorm does not allow strikethrough in titles.)

Also, there is an update at the bottom of the article.

An obscure part of D.C.'s liquor license protest regulations may marginalize a group that wishes to protest longer opening hours for Bar Charlie Charley (1825 18th Street NW).

Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2B/Dupont Circle voted unanimously to protest the application by recently-opened Bar Charlie Charley to make a "substantial change" in its liquor license, specifically, to extend its hours of interior operation for an additional three hours a day, until 2am Monday - Thursday, and 3am Saturday - Sunday. The vote took place as part of ANC2B's marathon November 13 meeting.

Bar Charley replaced a Cajun restaurant.

The Dupont Circle Citizens Association (DCCA) and a group of five neighbors are also protesting.

For and against at the meeting, and before

First, Bar Charley's owner-operators put the case for extended hours, then ANC2B Chair Will Stephens (Commissioner for district 08, where Bar Charley is located) spoke in favor. Finally, four neighbors (three against, one in favor) also spoke. A woman from the 1700 block of Swann Street said she had 80 signatures on a petition against the extended hours. Her statement against the petition received applause by about 15 people in the audience.

Many other members of the community wished to comment but were not given permission to do so because of time constraints -- the ANC still had petitions from other restaurants, as well as foreign embassies and multiple property developers, to consider. Representatives of all these groups watched and waited, displaying various degrees of patience.

Meanwhile, an ill-tempered anonymous leaflet of leading "questions" for Stephens was distributed at the meeting. Example questions: "...why did you personally deliver leaflets supporting an establishment with pending business before your committee?" and "...why are you mischaracterizing the customary operating hours of our neighborhood restaurants... ?"

Stephens' web site also had hosted expressions of community opposition, both polite and not. Nine days before the ANC meeting, Stephens authored an article about Bar Charley's request. At the end of the article, Stephens said he planned to support the request for longer hours. This post drew community comment. In one comment, one anti-Bar Charlie Charley post called Stephens' claim of divided community opinion on Bar Charley "a blatant lie". Another respondent wrote to "respectfully disagree". Still another supported Bar Charley.

There was an additional comment made on Stephens' blog after the meeting: 

I would have loved to state [my opinion] in person at the meeting yesterday. Curiously enough there was not enough time for me to speak, after ample amount of time was dedicated to statements from all three owners of Bar Charley and yourself, all in defense of the license application.

Taken together, the anti-Bar Charley faction seemed determined to imply Stephens had made up his mind before the meeting and was doing Bar Charley's bidding.

Nevertheless, the ANC (including Stephens) voted to protest the application. The reason, according to a tweet from ANC2B Commissoner Kevin O'Connor (district 02): "Because DCCA & a group of 5 or more are protesting, we thought it best to be at the table. The owners [of Bar Charley] welcomed the idea."

The obscure rule

In addition to ANCs, two other types of entities can protest a liquor license application, renewal, or change. One is a registered community organization, which must hold public meetings and meet other requirements. The DCCA is such an organization. Its protest will having standing with D.C.'s Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA), next to the ANC's protest.

The other type of entity that can protest is a group of five or more. This case also has such a protesting group.

There is an obscure ABRA rule part of D.C. law that says an agreement between an ANC and a liquor-licensee "bumps" a group of five's protest. To put it another way: If the ANC enters into a agreement with an establishment about opening hours, the group of five's protest will be dismissed automatically, whether the group of five is satisfied with the agreement or not.

If the recent behavior of Bar Charley's protesting neighbors is any indication of the character of the group of five, the group of five is more strongly opposed to the extended hours than ANC2B is. It may be difficult for Stephens and the ANC to convince the group of five and their allies that the ANC is really acting with their interests in mind.

A November 14 blog post by the web site Barred in DC provides more detail about this vote.

UPDATE:

After publication, I received the following information from ABRA. The section of the law which allows an ANC to "bump" a group of five is highlighted:

The law was recently updated by the Omnibus Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Emergency Amendment Act of 2012 as follows:

(w) Section 25-609 is amended as follows:

 (1) The existing language is designated as subsection (a).

 (2) The newly designated subsection (a) is amended as follows:

 (A) Strike the phrase “if any,” and insert the phrase “if any, and serve

a copy upon the applicant or licensee,” in its place.

 (B) Strike the phrase “Whether or not” and insert the word “Whether”

in its place.

 (C) Strike the phrase “The applicant” and insert the phrase “The

applicant or licensee” in its place.

 (3) A new subsection (b) is added to read as follows:

 “(b) In the event that an affected ANC submits a settlement agreement to the Board on a protested license application, the Board, upon its approval of the settlement agreement, shall dismiss any protest of a group of no fewer than 5 residents or property owners meeting the requirements of § 25-601(2). The Board shall not dismiss a protest filed by another affected ANC or by a citizens association meeting the requirements of § 25-601(3) upon the Board’s approval of an ANC’s settlement agreement submission.”