Committee of 100 On Federal City v. Hodel

611 F. Supp. 547, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19345
CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedMay 30, 1985
DocketCiv. A. No. 85-0059
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 611 F. Supp. 547 (Committee of 100 On Federal City v. Hodel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Committee of 100 On Federal City v. Hodel, 611 F. Supp. 547, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19345 (D.D.C. 1985).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BARRINGTON D. PARKER, District Judge:

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs in this proceeding are four local organizations concerned with and interested in the maintenance and preservation of federal parklands in Washington, [549]*549D.C. (“District of Columbia” or “District”). They seek to set aside a decision of the National Park Service1 (“Park Service” or “NPS”) to surrender an easement restricting building heights on a parcel of land on the waterfront in the Georgetown section of the District of Columbia to 20 feet or one story. The land involved is situated along the banks of the Potomac River and Rock Creek. The surrender of the easement would permit construction of a 60 foot office building and a 52 foot hotel building by a private developer, Washington Harbour Associates (“Washington Harbour” or “WHA”). In exchange for the surrender of the easement, the developer would convey to the Park Service certain access and scenic easements on its privately-owned land and neighboring property and make improvements on that as well as on adjoining Park Service land.

The plaintiffs include two citizen groups, the Committee of 100 on the Federal City and the Committee for Washington & Riverfront Parks (“organizational plaintiffs”), who bring this action on behalf of their members, and the Human Environment Institute and the Environmental Policy Institute (“institutional plaintiffs”), who pursue this action on their own behalf. The named defendants are the Secretary of the Interi- or, and two National Park Service officials who are sued solely in their official capacities (“federal defendants”). In addition, the Court permitted Washington Harbour Associates, the owner and developer of the privately-owned property involved herein, and Rosewood Hotels, Inc. (“Rosewood”), the planned purchaser of a portion of the private development, to intervene as defendants (“defendant-intervenors”).

Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief to prevent the proposed exchange of interests between Washington Harbour and the Park Service on the grounds that it violates a 1977 amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 16 U.S.C. § 460/-9(c). In the alternative, plaintiffs seek a remand to the Secretary of the Interior of the decision to enter into the agreement on either of two independent grounds: failure to hold a public hearing in violation of statutory authority, 16 U.S.C. § 460/ -22(b), or that the Secretary’s determination that the interests being exchanged were approximately equal in value was arbitrary and capricious.

Before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment.2 This matter has been extensively briefed and ably argued by counsel for the parties. After review and consideration of the record, the pleadings and submissions of the parties, the Court concludes that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment should be granted and that the proposed exchange of interests be enjoined.

BACKGROUND

This controversy deals with a section of land situated on the shore of the Potomac River bordering Washington, D.C. The entire shoreline of the Potomac River in the District is owned and managed by the federal government through the Park Service, with the exception of a particular area of the shoreline known as the Georgetown Waterfront.3 A sizeable portion of the entire Potomac shoreline outside of the District is publicly owned. A long-established goal of the federal government has been to acquire and protect as much of the Potomac shoreline as possible. March 25, 1985 Affidavit of Manus J. Fish, Jr., Regional Director for the National Capital Region of NPS at ¶ 3.

The Georgetown Waterfront area consists of approximately 19 acres of land. Six acres are privately owned, eight acres are owned by the District, two and one half [550]*550acres are owned by the federal government, and two and one half acres are local street right-of-ways. The federal government obtained its land on the Georgetown Waterfront in 1938 when it purchased the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Compl. at 1110. The receivers of the Canal withheld nineteen parcels of land from sale to the government which were then being used primarily by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. However, the United States was able to acquire an easement over one of the nineteen parcels of land. That portion, known as Parcel G, consists of approximately 1.21 acres of land. The easement limits the height of buildings on that Parcel to 20 feet or one story. Formalized in 1941, the restrictive height easement still runs with the land.4

Washington Harbour Associates owns some of the private Georgetown Waterfront property. That property is located in three parcels: lot 102,5 lot 81,6 and lot 97.7 Lots 81 and 97 comprise Parcel G. In 1979, the then-Secretary of the Interior rejected a plan to purchase the privately held Georgetown Waterfront property. The purchase price was estimated to be $22 million. Fish Aff. at II7. The Park Service then entered into an agreement with the District of Columbia, the National Capital Planning Commission,8 and WHA for joint development of the Georgetown Waterfront area. That agreement involved some land exchanges, including the easement at issue in this matter. The developer’s design plans, however, were rejected by the Commission of Fine Arts in 1980. Fish Aff. at MI 8-9. Because the joint development plan had been effectively foreclosed, WHA decided to implement its own plans for development on Lot 102. Washington Harbour was able to proceed with its plans absent NPS involvement because no federal interests are involved on that land. That development, known as Phase I, is currently under construction as a complex for office, retail, and residential purposes.

Washington Harbour then sought to pursue its interest in developing Parcel G (Lots 81 and 97). That development is known as Phase II. Defendant-intervenor Rosewood has contracted to purchase the developed Phase II properties from Washington Harbour.

In 1983, WHA and the NPS began negotiating toward another comprehensive agreement which would encompass the Georgetown Waterfront area. An agreement was reached for a proposal which the government stated would “guarantee permanent public access along the waterfront and Rock Creek, ... preserve river views from Georgetown, and allow landscape improvements to National Park Service lands.” 48 Fed.Reg. 55643 (Dec. 14, 1983). In exchange, the government surrendered the restrictive height easement on Parcel G.

The proposal was set forth in an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) in December, 1983, which was made available to the public through notice in the Federal Register. Id. Under the proposed exchange, WHA would guarantee permanent public aecess and scenic easements on its property along the Potomac River and Rock Creek, provide a scenic easement on a portion of its Phase I property and also agree to landscape and maintain the public access easement areas as well as certain adjacent parklands. In [551]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
611 F. Supp. 547, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/committee-of-100-on-federal-city-v-hodel-dcd-1985.