WeWork's Liquor License: "I Didn't Realize It Was a Big Deal until the Police Came In"

A DC branch of WeWork, located in the Wonder Bread Factory (641 S Street NW), has gotten endorsement of both permanent and temporary liquor licenses  from the liquor licensing affairs committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street.

641 S Street in November 2013

The committee also voted to draft a letter to DC's liquor-licensing authorities stating that the ANC does not believe WeWork actually needs a liquor license. Whether WeWork actually needs a liquor license is the subject of a separate blog post today here.

The decisions occurred at the most recent committee meeting on January 21.

WeWork is a New York-based start-up that "creates collaborative co-working communities". It has branches in 13 cities in four countries. According to Forbes.com, the company "takes out a cut-rate lease on a floor or two of an office building, chops it up into smaller parcels and then charges monthly memberships to startups and small companies that want to work cheek-by-jowl with each other." A report in Wired.com said the company was valued at $5 billion.

At the January 21 meeting, Carl Pierre, head of DC Operations for WeWork, called the company a "shared office space collaborative environment". It supplies to tenants, as part of their leases, a shared kitchen stocked with water, tea, coffee, soft drinks, and beer, at no additional charge. The beer is sometimes deployed to lubricate "speed business coaching" and computer coding sessions, but is locked up at 10pm.

WeWork operated in this matter until they were visited by the enforcement division of DC's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA).

"I didn't realize it was a big deal until the police came in," Pierre said.

The committee held a single vote that recommended to the full ANC that they endorse both a stipulated liquor license and a permanent liquor license for WeWork. The vote was nine in favor, one against, one abstention.

A stipulated liquor license, explained here, is one of the few acts which an ANC can take on its own authority. If the ANC approves a stipulated license (and if there are no other objecting parties), then an establishment can start serving alcohol immediately after the payment of a $100 fee to ABRA, while the establishment's paperwork for a permanent license works its way through normal channels.

The full ANC will probably consider endorsement both the stipulated liquor license and the permanent license at its next meeting, scheduled for Thursday, February 5, at 7pm, at the Reeves Center (14th and U Streets).

However, as explained in a today's other blog post, it is possible that WeWork does not actually need a liquor license, in which case the time and money Pierre and others at WeWork spent engaging consultants, visiting the ANC committee meeting, etc., will have been unnecessary. 

ANC1B Committee Votes to Protest License for 24-hour Operation by Satellite Room

Satellite Room, a "hipster diner" located across from the 9:30 Club at 2047 9th Street NW, is asking for a change to its liquor license which would allow 24-hour operation. However, Ian Hilton, one of the co-owners of the Satellite Room, told the liquor-licensing affairs committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street on January 21 that the intention was to operate 24 hours only on weekends, from opening at 5pm Fridays to "last call" Sunday night.

Satellite Room in 2012 (Photo credit below)

The sought-after changes would not only allow the establishment to stay open all night, but also to serve alcohol, both inside and outside, until 3am. Hilton said the intention was to stop serving alcohol at 2:30 am "last call" and not resume until 11am. Those remaining would be able to order food and remain inside.

The committee voted to recommend to the full ANC a protest for the proposed change in the license until a modified settlement agreement can be worked out between the Satellite Room, the ANC, and a group of objecting neighbors who are resident at The Floridian condo (929 Florida Avenue). The motion was made by ANC1B Commissioner John Green (district 12). Eight of the 11 committee members present voted for the motion, none against, three abstained.

A settlement agreement is a binding legal agreement. In the case of DC liquor licensees, a settlement agreement often deals with hours of operation, noise, trash disposal, parking, and other matters of community interest. A settlement agreement is part of the establishment's liquor license.

In this case, a settlement agreement (see page 4 of a 6-page .pdf here) was entered into in 2011 by the establishment (then called "Satellite Pizza") and the ANC. It allows the establishment to routinely stay open until 3am on the weekends. If the Satellite Room wishes to get DC's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) to consent to the increase their opening hours, they will have to get the ANC to agree, as well as placating the residents of The Floridian who are planning to file a "group of five or more" protest.

Nick Baumann, chair of the ANC1B liquor-licensing affairs committee, said he had received "several emails" objecting to the extended hours. Baumann read one email as representative of all. The email complained of the noise from the Satellite Room's rear outdoor patio, which is legally defined as a "summer garden", even though it is largely concrete.

A married couple were present at the meeting to represent the residents of The Floridian. They reported that about 1/3rd of the units in face the Satellite Room on 9th Stree. They had 16 signatures of Floridian residents against the change in hours, and planned to get more.

"All of the unit owners are bothered by the current state of affairs," one of the Floridian residents said.

"You get the bass, the people talking over the music," she said.

She also said that, although the summer garden has a legal capacity of 24 seats, there are "roughly a hundred people there on many nights".

"Everyone's having difficulty sleeping," she said, adding that residents have to use white noise machines and ear plugs.

In addition, there have been problems with late-night smokers congregating in front of the condo, as well as on-street vomiting near the condo.

Owner Ian Hilton disputed that noise had been a problem, noting that DC authorities had visited his establishment after the neighbors had complained. ABRA had taken readings, and NOT cited his establishment for noise violations, unlike some of his neighbors.

"We've had visits from ABRA," he said. "We've been a compliant owner."

Hilton called the accusations of noise from his establishment "a case of mistaken identity"

The Satellite Room is in ANC1B district 11. The newly-elected ANC1B Commissioner for the district is Robb Hudson. Hudson was present at the meeting, and it seems like the task of trying to negotiate an agreement will fall to him.

The full ANC will probably vote at its next regularly scheduled meeting on the recommendation to protest the application for the liquor license change. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 5, at 7pm, at the Reeves Center (14th and U Streets).

ABRA will have a "roll call" hearing on February 17, 10am, at ABRA headquarters on the fourth floor of the Reeves Center. The ANC and "group of five or more" will have to show up and have standing as a protesting group officially accepted. After that, there will probably be attempts at mediation.

(Photo credit: Borderstan.com, used by permission)

1309-1315 Clifton Street: "Affordable Housing *is* the Public Amenity"

At its regularly-scheduled monthly meeting on January 20, the Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street heard a presentation from a team hoping to develop two adjoining parcels of land (1309-1315 Clifton Street NW) into a 160-170 unit, six-story apartment building. The team includes Aria Development Group, attorneys from the firm Goulston & Storr, and Cunningham Quill Architects. They presented their ideas to the committee for review before it applies to the DC Zoning Commission for a Planned Unit Development (PUD).

Artist's conception of the finished building

No vote on the project was sought by the developers or taken by the committee. The plan is still in the discussion stage.

The group had had an initial consultation with the Design Review Committee the previous month. At that time, the Committee indicated components of a development they were interested in, including off-street (car) parking, bicycle parking, and affordable housing.

Off-Street parking: The two parcels of land are zoned R-5-B. According to Section 11-2101.1 of DC Municipal Regulations, an apartment building on this category of land would be required to have one parking space for every two units, meaning in this case 80-85 parking spaces. The original proposal provided 22 parking spaces. In December, the Design Review Committee suggested more parking. The team came back with a revised design that provided for 36 parking spaces.

Bicycle Parking: According to documents submitted by the team at the meeting, 55 bike parking spaces (one per three units) are required. The current design envisions 80 long-term bike parking spaces and 10 short-term. The bike storage area will have its own ramp from the public alley in the rear of the building. The building will also have a "bike workshop" area.

Affordable housing: Also at the suggestion of the committee, the building plan includes a increased contribution to local affordable housing, as defined by the Inclusionary Zoning Affordable Housing Program of the DC Department of Housing and Community Development. Specifically, it increased to eight percent (perhaps 12-14 units) the planned number of rental units that are intended to be affordable for people earning 50% of Area Median Income (AMI). (Washington area AMI in 2013 was $107,300.)

The committee approved of this pledge for increased 50% AMI housing.

"We're not having developers who are willing to go into 50% AMI," one committee member said.

According to a 2013 official document, an two-bedroom apartment designated as affordable at 50% AMI could be rented for a maximum of $1,207 per month.

In addition, the development team said, a further two percent (perhaps 3-4) units would be designated as affordable at 80% AMI. An two-apartment designated as affordable at 80% AMI could be rented for a maximum of $1,931 per month.

When the DC government declares a PUD, a developer pledges "public amenities", to the community. In return, the developer gets to build a something which might otherwise require zoning relief. The result is community groups (e.g., groups devoted to the beautification of local parks), schools, or other organizations appear after the declaration of a PUD and ask for "amenities", often in the form of cash, from developers.

After the developer's presentation was finished, a member of the Design Review Committee reminded the developer: "A PUD requires public amenities."

The developer seemed to be trying to avoid getting into the business of giving away money.

"Affordable housing is the public amenity," a member of the development team said.

(Photo credit: from documents submitted to the Design Review Committee)

CORRECTED: Assaults by Staff at 14th and U Club Alleged at ANC1B Committee Meeting

CORRECTED: After publication, I received an email from one of the woman mentioned below with a list of corrections. As I result, I rewrote parts of this article. I have tried to indicate edits with strikethrough for deletions and italics for additions. Also, I am adding the text of the email at the end of the article.

Two women came before the liquor-licensing affairs committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street last night (January 21) to allege that they had been assaulted inside the dance club Tropicalia (2001 14th Street NW).

"He dragged me down to the floor," one woman said. "He slammed me to the wall trying to drag me out."

Tropicalia is downstairs from the Subway at 14th and U

Although both of the women identified themselves (and their attacker) by name at the public meeting, I am not printing any of the names out of an abundance of caution, even though one of the women specifically gave me permission to print her name. After the meeting ended, I asked permission from both of the women to write a story about their testimony. They both agreed without hesitation.

One of the victims identified herself as a 24-year-old woman. She went to Tropicalia on New Year's Eve in early December, but neglected to take identification. She was allowed into the club, but was marked with a black "X" on her hands to indicate that she could not drink in the club. Nevertheless, she managed to obtained a drink from a performer. When the staff member saw the woman with the drink, he told her to leave the club approached her. She attempted to talk to him, and put the drink down and apologized. The staff member then assaulted her without warning, in the manner quoted above, she told the meeting. She also said the incident took place in front of five witnesses, one of whom was punched in the face.

The other woman said her incident took place on New Year's Eve, and did not detail what happen to her at the club, but she said she was injured and had to go the hospital. She also said the incident took place in front of five many witnesses, two of whom gave statements to the police.

"It's hard enough for me to talk about this," said the second woman.

The woman said she was in the club and felt a man touch the small of her back. She told him not to touch her there. She told him to say "excuse me" when trying to get by, instead of touching. The man grabbed her, picked her up bodily, crushing her ribs while walking her around. He told the woman he could touch her wherever he wanted.

Both women have reported the incidents to the police and have police reports.

One of the women The 24-year-old woman said the owner of the club had called to apologize. The owner also said the employee would be removed. But when the woman went to Tropicalia to meet with the owner, she said, the owner was absent but her assailant was present. The assailant told her that he would not be losing his job, that he had never actually touched her, and there was no footage of the incident from security cameras.

She also told the committee the assailant said: "Bitch, I'm not going anywhere."

"I'm astounded and I'm shocked," said one committee member, himself a liquor licensee.

The same committee member told the women that they might wish to press the owner on the matter of security footage because, according to DC law, licensees were only obligated to hold onto security footage for 30 days. By the end of the month, the liquor licensee would be able to legally destroy the video of the New Year's Eve incident.

Members of the committee told the women that this matter was one to be brought before DC's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA). They also advised the women to make sure that ABRA got a copy of the police reports. Committee Chair Nick Baumann said the incident would certainly come up when the liquor license came up for renewal in 2016, but there was a feeling at the meeting that it was a long time to wait.

"People need to be accountable for what they do," a committee member said.

Baumann said he would ask the licensee to come to the next meeting of the liquor-licensing affairs committee, scheduled for February 18. Would the women be willing to return and talk with owner in front of the committee?

They would, they said.

Committee members called up public records at the meeting which indicated that there had been an alleged assault at the club in 2014, but ABRA declined to take any action against the club in relation to the event.

(Photo credit: Google Street View)

UPDATE: Below is the text of the email from one of the women, correcting the record:

quote

I would correct the following inaccuracies:

Woman #1

·       This occurred in early December
·       She did not buy a drink, the performer passed one to her
·       The staff member did not tell her to leave the club, he simply approached her
·       She put the drink down and said sorry before he assaulted her, without saying anything
·       At least 5 witnesses, one of whom was punched in the face
·       When she went back and was surprised he was not fired as the owner had promised, the security staff told her, “Bitch, I’m not going anywhere.”

Woman #2 (me)

·       31 years old
·       New Year’s Eve
·       I felt hands on the small of my back from a random person walking through the crowd. I told the man, “Don’t touch me there.” I told him he could say excuse me when trying to get by, instead of putting his hands on my body. He got aggressive, grabbed me, put me in a bear hug, and crushed my ribs while lifting me up and walking me around, telling me “I can touch you however I want.”
·       I only found out when I talked to the police that he was the head of security.
·       Many witnesses, 2 of whom were with me and have given statements to MPD
·       Owner called me to apologize, but this is disingenuous; he already knew about this particular staff member assaulting women, because he knew about what happened to woman #1.

end quote

Heritage India/The Zanzibar: DC "Will Permanently Ban" Entertainment, Promoters

DC's Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board "will permanently ban" entertainment, including DJs, from the establishment known as the restaurant Heritage India during the day and at night as The Zanzibar or The New Zanizbar (1901 Pennsylvania Avenue NW), the Board said in an announcement on Friday, January 16. As part of the ban, the establishment will be forbidden from charging a cover, having live music, or engaging promoters.

The latest word from DC government

However, the establishment may still be able to re-gain its liquor license pending further deliberations by the ABC Board, the announcement said. This might allow the establishment to continue functioning as a conventional restaurant.

The decision to ban entertainment came in the wake of a January 3 incident where a patron was stabbed in a late-night melee.

At its regular monthly meeting on January 14, Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle voted unanimously to send a letter to the ABC Board which urged the establishment be permanently shuttered.

"ANC2B believes this event indicates an emerging pattern of violence at this establishment," the letter said.

The letter recalls that, in November 2011, the establishment, operating at a different location in Dupont Circle, was the sight of a gunfight in which one man was killed and five wounded. The next month, the ABC Board cancelled the entertainment endorsement on the establishment's liquor license, ordered the establishment to close by midnight, and ordered a security plan.

The letter continues:

In the Spring of 2014, Heritage India approached ANC2B and requested changes to their negotiated settlement agreement to allow for entertainment and other late-night activities at the Pennsylvania Ave location. The ANC was willing to negotiate a new agreement with the owners and one was reached in May to allow for entertainment and promotion activities.

At the January 14 meeting, ANC2B Commissioner Stephanie Maltz recalled: "I spent a lot of time on this. They brought a very detailed security plan and hired a firm with a proven record in DC."

However, according to information given at the ANC meeting (citing a police report on the January 3 incident), when push came to shove, the staff did not follow the security plan. A Washington Post article on the melee said there were only four staff members on duty for "250 to 275" patrons, in violation of the security plan which mandated one guard for every 50 patrons. The Post article also says security camera footage shows club employees mopping up blood before the police had a chance to investigate, in spite of efforts of one of the victim's friends to wrestle the mop away to preserve the crime scene.

"They clearly didn't care," said Commissioner Patrick Kennedy, visiting ANC2B from neighboring ANC 2A/Foggy Bottom. "There is no remedy short of revocation."

In its announcement, the ABC Board said it had referred the case to the DC Attorney General's office to bring formal charges against Heritage India. If charges are brought, it may generate the need for further ABC Board hearings. The Board promised to announce any future hearings on its web site.

Deadline for Comment on Pop-up Legislation Extended, February Hearing Scheduled

At the end of a marathon January 15 public hearing about proposed rules that would limit "pop-ups" in many DC residential neighborhoods, DC Zoning Commission Chair Anthony Hood announced that the deadline for comment would be extended to 3pm on Thursday, January 29. Hood also announced that public deliberations on the proposal would take place at a meeting scheduled for 6:30pm on Monday, February 9, at a Zoning Commission hearing room on the second floor of 441 4th Street NW (metro: Judiciary Square).

Screenshot from video of January 15 meeting

A page here at the DC Office of Zoning website outlines two ways to submit comments to the Zoning Commission. One of the methods requires setting up a name and password to access the Office of Zoning's Interactive Zoning Information System (IZIS). The other, somewhat easier, method is to send an email to zcsubmissions@dc.gov before the deadline. In order to be part of the public record, an email submitted to the Zoning Commission must:

• be in the form of an attached .pdf document, signed by the author
• be less than ten pages long
• contain the case number and name in the subject line, in this case: 14-11 Office of Planning

At the hearing, Hood repeatedly expressed his desire to hear from all people who had come to testify, which in the end numbered about 100 people. To this end, a strict time limit on comments was made and enforced. With a few exceptions, current DC homeowners and Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners (ANCs) testified in favor of the proposal to limit popups, including ANCs from Wards One, Four, and Six. A smaller number of homeowners, plus several developers and attorneys for developers, spoke against the plan.

DC government representatives held public meetings in Columbia Heights last summer and fall to talk about the proposed regulations -- see SALM blog post of August 5 and September 29, 2014.

Read coverage of the January 15 hearing from the blog Urban Turf here.

You can both read public submissions of support and opposition (including a four-page letter of opposition by Harriet Tregoing, former Director of the DC Office of Planning) to the proposal, as well as watch an archived video of the January 15 hearing on this topic, at the IZIS portal here. Enter case number 14-11 in the search bar.

2724 11th Street: Zoning Relief Rejected for Controversial Building

On January 13, DC's Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) rejected the request of Jefferson-11th Street, LLC, for zoning relief that would have allowed a controversial renovation at 2724 11th Street NW to go forward. Four members of the board voted unanimously against the request, and one member was absent.

Protest at 2724 11th Street in October 2014

The request for zoning relief has been the subject of a long battle between the building owner on one side and the tenants and neighborhood allies on the other. As a result, the request has drawn a lot more attention than normal, including coverage by WAMU, letters of opposition from City Councilmember David Grosso (I-At Large) and now-former City Councilmember Jim Graham (D-Ward One), and appearances last fall in support of the tenants at the building by future Ward One City Councilmember Brianne Nadeau and the Eposcopalian Bishop of the Diocese of Washington Marian Budde.

The owners argued that relief was appropriate because of undue hardship and exception financial difficulties that the strict application of zoning regulations would cause. The Board said the owners had not proven that this was the case. Specifically, the board took exception to the financial data that the owners had submitted.

"I clearly cannot find the financials submitted to this board credible," said BZA Chair Lloyd Jordan. "The financials are not in the customary form."

The Board had warned that applicants at a public hearing in November (see SALM blog post of November 25, 2014) that their "financials" were not convincing and that clarifying documentation was needed.

"The submitted documentation did not make it any more credible," Jordan said.

"I find what was submitted to us troubling and just kind of hard to swallow," said board member Anthony Hood.

Board Vice-chair S. Kathryn Allen commended the ownership for "attempting to deal with the issues of this building, and hoped the owners intended "to make good on it promises to the tenants".

"I did find the opposition in this case, which was significant, compelling. I respect very much the concerns of the folks who took the time to come and testify," Allen said.

I did not attend this meeting. I gathered the information in this report by watching a streaming video of the hearing. The video is available on the website of the DC Office of Zoning here -- click on the hearing of January 13. The segment dealing with this case starts at 34:07.

Documents pertaining to this case can be accessed by going the BZA's Interactive Zoning Information System and entering case number 18790 in the search bar.

(Photo credit: Amal Mimish, used by permission)