Summary of Community Integrated Master Plan Forum Session 1

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Summary of Community Integrated Master Plan Forum Session 1"

Alexandra Osborne
5 years ago
Views:

Summary of Community Integrated Master Plan Forum Session 1 Held on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 Eastern Market North Hall 5:00 PM 9:00 PM A total of 46 persons signed in as meeting participants, but

1 Summary of Community Integrated Master Plan Forum Session 1 Held on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 Eastern Market North Hall 5:00 PM 9:00 PM A total of 46 persons signed in as meeting participants, but an estimated total of 70 persons were in attendance at Session 1 of the Community Integrated Master Plan (CIMP) Forum. The session began with a 1.5-hour open house followed by a series of speakers and discussion. Opening remarks were provided by Colonel David L. Spasojevich (Headquarters Marine Corps) who thanked everybody for coming, noted that within his leadership there is a lot of attention is being paid to this first-of-its-kind process, and that the Marine Corps is encouraged by the potential. An overview of the purpose of the CIMP Forum and Marine Corps Development Objectives was provided by Mr. Bruce Jackson (Headquarters Marine Corps) with support from Carol Wirth (TEC Inc.). It was noted that the main purpose of the CIMP Forum is to conclude the CIMP process with a set of community development objectives that demonstrate the priorities of the community and that the community thinks are appropriate for incorporation into the Request for Proposals (RFP) for CIMP implementation. Additionally, the CIMP Forum was being used to share updated information with the community regarding the CIMP to assist and further the discussion. The Marine Corps Development Objectives center on replacing Building 20 with a facility that meets the current antiterrorism and force protection and quality of life standards and that would be an appropriate reuse of the Building 20 site. The interpretation of the antiterrorism and force protection requirements for the urban environment that were reached in response to input from the CIMP process were highlighted. Various BEQ Complex Concept layouts were presented, while emphasizing that the renderings were merely to represent what massing and layout options are possible in order to further discussions. The actual proposals that could emerge from the RFP process are expected to differ. Colonel Paul D. Montanus, Commanding Officer Marine Barracks Washington, spoke about his perspectives on the need for the process, tying it to his responsibility to keep Marines assigned to Marine Barracks Washington safe and his desire for the Marine Corps to continue to be a part of the unique and highly valued community that developed around the history Main Post 1

2 8th & I. Many participants complimented Col. Montanus on his comments and thanked him for his participation. The next segment of the evening involved a series of speakers who provided their perspectives on the CIMP process and development objectives to be considered in the CIMP process. Mr. Sam Fromartz, Committee to Save Virginia Avenue Park The committee had feared that the CIMP process was going to result in the loss of Virginia Ave. Park that they were going to be in a fight against the Marines and you don't win against the Marines. Noted that progress has made with the CIMP process and is gratified with moves so far. The primary concern is preservation of green space. Virginia Avenue Park has historical significance because it is part of the original L Enfant Plan, and it should not be lost. The Park is in high demand 50 families currently use the garden and 60 more are on a waiting list. The Committee is not against development, but it does not want the Park sacrificed haphazardly to development. The Committee made the Park what it is today; 6 years ago was a rundown drug hotspot. Still believe the Park could be improved upon and used by surrounding community, including the Marines. Ideally, would like to see possible further amenities and improvements to the Park incorporated into the RFP. A written copy of the comments was provided for the record. Mr. David Cortiella, DC Housing Authority The planning process started off rocky, but has since evolved to ask more what the community wants, instead of the Marines telling the community what they want. Some history of the Cappers-Carollsburg Housing Hope VI Grant program was provided. The program was given a grant to replace 700 low-income public housing units in multidevelopment housing units. The goal is to build housing units, 700 of which would be low-income/public housing. The approach allows for mix uses and mix housing in a new urban setting. The planned Cappers Community Center for the parcel adjacent to the Marine Corps is part of the overall Hope VI program and associated obligations and expectations. The DC Housing Authority is required to submit a permit for the community center in July 2011 and must have funding in place at that time; the agency has twice previously requested extensions for the community center. There is high demand for such a facility to provide an environment that hosted after school and enrichment programs-would get kids off the streets. The number of youths that would potentially use this facility is also increasing. Funding, timeline, and clear requirements pose numerous challenges. 2

3 Discussions that are underway on potential shared facility with DC Public Schools are useful and should be continued. Operational concerns with a shared use facility could be addressed in subsequent planning. Mr. Brodi Fontenot, US Department of Transportation The US Department of Transportation (DOT) is pleased to partner on a possible shared federal childcare facility. When the DOT transferred to their new SE location office, they brought 6,000 employees to the area without a childcare facility. The organization understands that such a facility is secondary to the BEQ Complex, but is happy to see that possibilities are being evaluated as part of the CIMP. There is obviously a strong need for a childcare facility in the SE area in general and employees have expressed a great need for childcare in the area, After initial review, the demand for a childcare facility within the DOT is more than 100 families. Wanted to reiterate the DOT is happy to be part of the CIMP process. Mr. Alex Nock, Building 20 Neighbor Representative Our main issues focus on Building 20 site reuse: future use and replacement of structures. They appreciate the Marines reaching out to get community to obtain input and comments. Have a strong concern: Building 20 currently blocks views of the freeway and that plays a positive and important role in making 8 th Street feel like a community. If the building is razed or changed, fear that the freeway viewshed would be a negative impact. Some early renderings have shown the Building 20 site reuse with a block of retail uses. We strongly oppose a block-long string of retails stores; our residents do not want to look at stores. Some good possible reuses for the Building 20 site could be a theater/performing arts center or childcare facility. Even after the building is turned over, we would like to maintain some of the 24/7 Marine presence that we are used to and enjoy in the area. There is a worry if the Marines just leave it, it would not have the same feel and if it becomes just a 9-5 office style use that would also be a detriment. Also, do not want to see fast food chains locate at the site, as they do not fit the style of the area. Strongly opposed to a parking garage, as this could exacerbate the already bad traffic problem on 8 th Street, and be an eyesore to the area. The worst possible outcome for the Building 20 site would for it to become a vacant lot. We want the Marines to stay involved and not turned over to a group/developer that could not maintain it and it eventually becomes razed. A written copy of the comments was provided for the record. 3

4 Mr. Norm Metzger, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6D Comments represent just one member of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 6D; ANC 6B also has been involved. The relationship between the Marines and community is good; the Marines are a wonderful neighbor and the area respects them and their mission. As a local resident he has always enjoyed colors being played in the summer evenings. There is a need to appreciate the CIMP process; we are being made very aware of security standards and exactly what the Marines are up against. Pleased with the accommodations made to protect the community gardens and Virginia Avenue Park thus far. Also pleased with the more aggressive thinking and approaches for uses [or reuses] of the Building 20 site. Although it is distressing that the process is taking longer than anticipated, overall pleased with the partnership process and look forward to assisting in any way we can; working together will continue to benefit the community. Mr. David Perry, Barracks Row Main Street Wanted to explain a little about the process: the federal government has power of eminent domain and the quick take authority. To the Marines great credit, they chose not to pursue that avenue and have instead instituted the CIMP process. The Marines have also been responsive to input thus far. Currently we are 18 months away from picking a developer; the bad news is that we thought we would be much further along at this point. Both sides of the 8 th Street south of the freeway needs to be updated and enhanced, this needs to be given high priority. The area should be developed to include mixed uses. The renderings and massing studies shown thus far are very much conceptual, we are looking at glossy cartoon-like notions now. This is a great opportunity for a development that would induce further economic activity in the lower 8th St. area, where the status quo is not acceptable to the community. To that end, the 929/930 and "Exxon" sites are favored for development over the MBW Annex site by Barracks Row Main Street as these would have the best increased spillover effect in getting the area south of the freeway redeveloped. Preservation of historic areas and structures, mixed use development, and preservation of green space are all positives that need to be incorporated. Mr. Michael Stevens, Capitol Riverfront Business Improvement District Appreciated and thanked Colonel Montanus for his opening remarks on the Marine Corps mission. Despite the rocky start, points of clarity are emerging and progress has been made through this CIMP process. Shared use facilities and mixed-use development are the Business Improvement District (BID) priorities. 4

5 Reiterated that any development that occurs should NOT affect the tax rolls. Suggested the Marines should more aggressively consider development at the MBW Annex and really think about what could go there or be accommodated there (e.g., high security need components). For Building 20 reuse, there should still be some Marine presence; other possible positive reuses would be residential and art/gallery space. Additional/better discussion of joint use facilities is needed. All sites should be referenced in the RFP and the following needs to be made very clear: programmatic needs of the Marine Corps; better discussion of joint use facilities and antiterrorism and force protection requirements; proposers asked to meet certain standards and propose on a preferred site and address financing (costs and benefits); finally, it should be structured to include urban design constructs such as: 1 st floor retail/meeting spaces/community use, no blank walls, no major parking fronting streets, no loss of parks, no street closures if at all possible, walkability, and preservation of historic structures should be paramount. This process has been very educational. Followed the speaker presentations, participants were encouraged to ask questions and the following discussions occurred: Building 20 Reuse Marine Corps commitment to use 25% of a new building is important to developers. What will be the process for what the other 75% will be? The Marine Corps cannot guarantee use or dictate how the developer will use the remainder of the space, but the RFP is expected to include development objectives for appropriate reuse of the facility. A memorandum of agreement could potentially address government partners interest in Building 20 reuse; any such agreement would be reflected in the RFP. Is there any chance for Tyler Elementary to relocate into Building 20 and use Virginia Ave. Park as a playground? This question had been asked previously, but there has been no interest in such a move by DC Public Schools. Another forum participant expressed opposition to such a plan. Would government childcare be an appropriate reuse for Building 20? Security requirements for a federal childcare facility need to be taken into account; community childcare might be a more appropriate use of Building 20. MBW Annex Site Under the option to locate the BEQ complex at the MBW Annex site, where would the displaced parking go from demolition of the parking structure? It would be located below grade and would need to accommodate both the current MBW Annex population, plus the new BEQ Complex population. 5

6 Squares 929/930 Site Where would DogMa Daycare for Dogs be relocated? This business leases land from the current landowner; a developer s response to the RFP would need to demonstrate a viable development plan, including addressing current businesses. The Marine Corps has met with the owners of this business and understands there is a unique situation for this business do to zoning constraints for relocation. RFP Who will be involved in the drafting and review of the RFP? Will there be community input into the RFP? Community representation in the selection process? What will be included in the RFP criteria/evaluation factors? General Engage the kids make them part of the process; let them plant flowers and they will take care of them. Address programs for underprivileged children. Consider aesthetics. Have accountability for any impacted families. It is indicated that he Navy Yard site is not being further considered under the CIMP process. How, if ever, will it be up for consideration? The Navy Yard has space constraints related to Base Realignment and Closure mandated increases in personnel to be housed at the Washington Navy Yard. The Marine Corps space in leased facilities at Washington Navy Yard that serve the Marine Corps Institute (MCI) is being decreased as a result of these space constraints. The Marine Corps is considering moving the MCI function to the Building 20 reuse site to free up needed space in Washington Navy Yard. Additional public input will be sought as part of the National Environmental Policy Act review process. Community Development Objectives With limited time remaining, the community was provided an overview of the types of community development objectives that would best inform the RFP and a handout was distributed that provided an initial draft of possible site-specific community development objectives based on the work that had been accomplished in the CIMP process to date. The only comment with regard to the draft community development objectives at the time was a suggestion to better define fair compensation/fair market price. Colonel David L. Spasojevich (Headquarters Marine Corps) closed the meeting with thanks to the participants, a commitment to follow-up on the items identified to date, and encouragement for participation at Session 2 of the CIMP Forum, to be held at Eastern Market from 5-9 PM on 7 December The first two hours of Session 2 will be an open house and 6

7 the second two hours will be dedicated to the authentication of the community development objectives. The 7 December session will mark the end of the CIMP process and the focus will shift to the development of the RFP. 7

Community Integrated Master Plan Workshop 4: CIMP Consensus Elements

Community Integrated Master Plan Workshop 4: CIMP Consensus Elements 22 May 2010 Headquarters Marine Corps Naval Facilities Engineering Command 1 What is a CIMP? A Community Integrated Master Plan is the