EMCAC Minutes - February 27, 2008
Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 at 10:04 pmEastern Market Community Advisory Committee
Minutes
Old Naval Hospital
February 27, 2008
Present: Mike Bowers (for Bill Glasgow), Chuck Burger, Angie Brunson; Barbara Eck, Monte Edwards, Larry Gallo, Ken Jarboe, Tom Kuchenberg, Richard Layman, Ellen Opper-Weiner, Donna Scheeder
The meeting was convened at 7:05 p.m.
1. Agenda
Motion: Ms. Scheeder moved/Mr. Burger seconded a motion to adopt the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
2. Minutes
Motion: Mr. Kuchenberg moved/Ms. Eck seconded a motion to approve the January 30, 2008 minutes as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
3. Office of Property Management
Curtis Clay, of OPM, reported that the roof work on the South Hall is 55% complete, and a cast iron star member in one of the roof trusses was damaged and had to be recast. The remaining steel work will be done from under the decking which will be 50% complete by the first week in March. The roof will be done by mid-May. There is a question of whether the roof for the North Hall will be completed by Minkoff, or will be part of the main renovation.
Window work is about 20% complete, with much of the work being done off-site, including the mock-ups, by the Craftsmen Group. They will be installed after Quinn Evans signs off on the glass samples. Approval will be on a short time line, with EMCAC, CHRS and other interested parties being given an opportunity to comment to HPO. The mock-ups will be in east-facing windows, and one will have Lexan and two will have different glazings.
The contract for the main renovation will be awarded in early March.
There has been an initial meeting between OPM and DDOT to discuss the 7th Street streetscape. DDOT will receive bids by March 3, and after a contractor is chosen, OPM will facilitate a meeting between the Market contractor and the streetscape contractor to start a coordination process. EMCAC will be involved in the coordination process. A final package will be submitted to the City Council for final approval. Ms. Scheeder requested that EMCAC see the package being submitted. Matt Hussman said he did not have a timeline for submission of the package to the Council. Mr. Jarboe asked about the status of the window mock ups. Mr. Hussman stated they would be installed in the North hall and the public will be invited to comment.
Mr. Gallo asked about the North Hall roof, and was told it’s a separate project, and while the drawings have been completed, OPM does not yet know who will do the work. Mr. Gallo also stressed the importance of removing the scaffolding so the outdoor vendors can resume full activity,
Mr. Edwards said that the current bid package includes gutters, flashing, etc. for the North Hall roof, and asked how it was going to be adjusted. He requested that the North Hall roof drawings be made available to the Capital Improvements Subcommittee for its review.
Mr. Hussman said that the RFP submitted by the Project for Public Spaces (PPS) is on the OPM website. He said that comments will be rolled into the final version, after which EMCAC will have an opportunity to comment on the final version, slated for early to mid-March. He said that OPM is working on a contingency plan for market management if the schedule doesn’t work and there’s no manager in place when EMV’s contract expires.
He said he has a meeting scheduled on the issue of heat in the East Hall. Ms. Opper-Weiner mentioned that there are heat issues in winter as well as summer. Mr. Hussman said he has been talking with Bill Glasgow about these issues. She also mentioned that there is still standing water at the 7th Street entrance, and Mr. Hussman said he hoped it would have been resolved by now.
Mr. Hussman said he is working with DCRA and Friendship House on the permitting issues relating to Market Day on May 4th.
Ms. Scheeder said that she appreciated the communication with OPM.
4. Market Operations Subcommittee
The amended RFP is included as an attachment to these minutes in order to properly indicate the changes that were made by both the Market Operations Subcommittee and the full EMCAC. Mr. Kuchenberg began the discussion of the draft RFP from PPS, by outlining the process the committee had followed. He said they read through the document line-by-line, and added citations of the DC market law. Certain changes were made universally, such as changing “Universal” management to “Unified” management.
Mr. Edwards reported that he added relevant portions of the Market Law to clarify portions of the RFP. He specifically focused on the section of the law that says that the law is very specific, indicating that the Market Manager shall contract, and shall lease, so that the relationship with the Market Master requires both a lease and a contract.
He pointed out the draft section that says there will be a 12-year conditional lease a/conditional on satisfying contracts, and that b/there shall be an initial term of four years for the management contract, with measurable benchmarks of accountability. He proposed that the Market Manager’s fees are subject to annual adjustments.
Ms. Scheeder pointed out that unified management does not preclude subcontracting. Mr. Kuchenberg highlighted the fact that if there is a failure to reach agreement on a Market Master, OPM will serve as interim manager of the Market.
Ms. Opper-Weiner pointed out that the Law (§37.110) does not give authority to the Market Manager for outdoor vending that does not occur on the Eastern Market square. That authority, she said, belongs to City agencies, and to give that responsibility to the Market Manager is a violation of the statute. It was agreed to adjust the language to reflect that the market manager has a role in the process but not authority.
Ken Jarboe said that the Executive Committee of ANC 6B had met to go over the RFP, and he presented a list of its suggestions, saying that the Executive Committee is empowered to act to represent the full ANC.
He suggested that items 2 and 3 on his list should be included in the introduction of the RFP;
1. On page 2, in the introduction, include a reference to the use of 7th Street (for as long as 7th Street is used for vending) in the description of the Market; and
2. On page 2, in the introduction, include a reference to role of the market manager with respect to Hine and the Natatorium Plaza.
Mr. Burger added that the RFP should address the fact that the Market Manager may have additional responsibilities if so required. Ms. Opper-Weiner noted that at no time but Market Day is vending authority extended to 7th Street. She added that Chuck’s idea is a good one, and that “necessary” should be defined as instances such as fire. She also said that she supports Mr. Edward’s proposal for providing guidelines and benchmarks.
Ms. Scheeder asked whether there is an industry-wide benchmark for the provision for a potential 25% bonus for the Market Master. She suggested that this matter be looked into more fully.
Carol Wright said the contracts for the Flea Markets have never, by choice, been renewed but have been revised over time.
Mr. Jarboe raised several other points from the ANC 6D report:
1. Clarify the use of the word “tenant” throughout the document-to mean indoor merchants and/or outdoor vendors, where appropriate.
2. On page 6, under “Universal Management: clarify that arts and craft market and flea market are separate and on separate days.
3. Strengthen the section on Universal Management to be clear that it is a strong objective and require some evidence of capabilities on the part of the respondent to reach that objective, including a possible time frame. (The complete list of ANC 6B suggestions is attached.)
He said that nowhere in the RFPP does it state that unified management is the objective. He also listed points 9-11, and noted that the benchmarks from the PPS report are not listed in the RFP. Ms. Scheeder responded that the RFP should not necessarily list the benchmarks but that they should be used as an evaluation standard for responses.
Mr. Gallo said that there should be language added about financial transparency, and was told that the document establishes auditing requirements. Ms. Opper-Weiner said there should be language asking how they plan to do day-to-day management of the Market, how Market could achieve sustainability, and that they should describe how to get there.
Mr. Burger said that a strategic vision for the Market is key, and there should be more meat on how the market can stay true to its goals while enhancing its economic and cultural growth.
A substantial discussion took place about the rating system for applications that is included in the document Mr. Burger said he disagreed with the breakout of point value to be given to various parts of the application. He said that experience and Scope of Work go hand-in-hand, and should be given equal weight. The budget, he said should be at 20%. Ms. Opper-Weiner said she agreed with Mr. Burger and the breakout should be 30% for Scope of Work; 30% for Experience with Market and Property Management, and 30% for Financial Plan. Mr. Edwards proposed eliminating “Responsiveness to RFP” because it is covered in all the other items, and breaking out the rating as 30% for Scope of Work; 40% for Experience with Market and Property Management; 20% for Financial Plan; and 10% for Minority Participation.
Ms, Scheeder said that EMCAC will have to develop benchmarks, and that innovation is a great one.
Motion: Mr. Edwards moved/Mr. Jarboe seconded a motion to eliminate “Responsiveness to RFP” because it is covered in all the other items, and breaking out the rating as 30% for Scope of Work; 40% for Experience with Market and Property Management; 20% for Financial Plan; and 10% for Minority Participation. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Jarboe mentioned that the ANC’s proposal no. 1, to include a threshold test that the respondents’ vision and proposals are consistent with the community’s vision as articulated in DC Law, specifically §37-104 and §37-105.
Motion: Mr. Edwards moved/Mr. Jarboe seconded a motion to accept the changes to the RFP subject to a 24-hour review and the inclusion of any necessary technical changes. The motion passed unanimously.
5. Capital Improvements Subcommittee
(Mr. Kuchenberg and Mr. Gallo left the meeting)
Mr. Edwards proposed two resolutions, one on the trash handling equipment in the alley, and one on interior lighting and the glazing of the windows.
Citing the substantial number of times EMCAC has testified or put language into reports on the importance of moving the dumpster, baler and other equipment to the Natatorium side of the alley between the Market and the pool, and the lack of response to those numerous comments, Mr. Edwards said that the current repair work being done on the Natatorium provides an appropriate opportunity to once again recommend the construction of a trash area on the other side of the alley.
Motion: Mr. Edwards moved/Ms. Opper-Weiner seconded the following resolution and motion:
RESOLUTION CONCERNING ALLEY REDESIGN AND IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
WHEREAS:
1. the previous location of the trash dumpster against the South Hall wall presented a fire hazard, and
2. the previous and present trash and dumpster location have been the subject of regular complaints from surrounding neighbors, and
3. the previous and currently proposed trash locations present impediments to pedestrian access to the west facade of the Eastern Market building, and
4. the previous and currently proposed trash locations detract from the significance of the west façade of the Market building, and
5. EMCAC has previously recommended that the trash dumpster, baler, compactor and other trash handling equipment be relocated to Natatorium side of the alley, and
6. The present side walk on the Natatorium side of the alley does not function as a sidewalk, and
7. The renovation of the Market will involve construction in the alley area to provide air intake kiosks, and
8. The Natatorium is now undergoing renovations.
NOW, THEREFORE, EMCAC recommends that:
1. OPM work with Parks and Recreation to obtain a trash handling area on the Natatorium side of the alley,
2. That to access that area, the Natatorium sidewalk be removed,
3. That the existing overhead lights for the alley be incorporated with the proposed new air intakes to be constructed on the Natatorium side of the alley.
4. That OPM and their architects take a fresh look at the entire alley to achieve better pedestrian access and to restore the west facade to its historic prominence.
Mr. Hussman said that he has looked at the issue and it seems right, and that “if we don’t ask it sure won’t happen.” Ms. Scheeder said she has been encouraged to have EMCAC adopt such a resolution as a way of providing added emphasis to the issue. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Edwards then offered a resolution and motion on the issue of interior lighting and window glazing, reiterating EMCAC’s earlier recommendations to OPM, and citing the reports in which those recommendations have been put forward.
Motion: Mr. Edwards moved/Ms. Opper-Weiner seconded a resolution and motion:
The window-glazing mock-up involves two issues:
1. The appearance of the glazing and whether it is appropriate for a historic building. This is both an HPRB and EMCAC issue. However, a decision on this issue should await an informed architectural and engineering determination of the individual contributors to the lighting level.
2. How the light contribution from the window and door glazing will contribute to the light from the skylights and how that combined light level is taken into account in the amount and control of the artificial light that will be provided for the South Hall.
To appropriately address these issues, EMCAC recommends that:
1. OPM obtains the services of a competent expert to perform an engineering/architectural analysis to measure and quantify these individual contributors to the lighting level. and
2. that data from that analysis then be related to recommended lighting levels for food appearance consideration and the final glazing design and area (artificial) light control be based on the results of that analysis, and
3. that OPM employ that data to separately address the area lighting that will be provided as a part of the market renovation and the display and task lighting that will be provided by the individual South Hall Merchants, and
4. that a dimming system be designed for the area lighting, that will increase the brightness of the area lighting on cloudy days, and dim the area lighting on bright sunny days, and
5. that OPM work with the South Hall Merchants in the design of the display and task lighting they will provide at their individual stands. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Edwards reported that the Streetscape bids came in last Friday. but the committee has not yet received drawings. He asked DDot for five sets, so EMCAC can review and make comments and mentioned that the streetscape plans do not take 7th Street vending into account.
Mr. Layman suggested that 7th Street should be paved in Belgian block, and Ms. Scheeder responded that she has heard comments that 7th Street should be unique, and EMCAC will cover such issues when EMCAC sends comments.
6. Market Manager
No one from Eastern Market Ventures was present.
Mr. Jarboe raised the issue of suppliers unloading on 8th Street, which they are not supposed to do. M. Bowers said that there is always a turnover in delivery people, and that the signage should be turned so that it can be seen from the alley.
7. Tenants’ Council
Mr. Bowers reported that there has been no formal meeting of the Tenants’ Council, but the tenants are talking about promotional events for the year, with the possibility of a Kick-Off event for the spring season when the farmers come back to the Saturday market. Ms. Scheeder mentioned that there will be an event when the art is put up on the side of the East Hall.
Mr. Burger mentioned that they have to move forward on the issue of Tenants’ Council representation to EMCAC.
8. Executive Committee
EMCAC Booth at Market Day
Ms. Scheeder reported that the Executive Committee had determined that it would be a good
idea for EMCAC to have a booth at Market Day to dispense information about the Market and the reconstruction.
Hine Jr. High School
Ms Scheeder reported that, because Hine Jr. High School will be closing in June, it is important for EMCAC to act immediately. She submitted the following report and resolution on the issue:
There have been previous discussions about the possible closing of Hine Jr. High, its impact on Eastern market and the potential future uses for the site. It is now official that the school will be closed at the end of this school year. It is now important that EMCAC make its position known on plans for the site. ANC6B and the Capitol Hill Restoration Society have already passed resolutions concerning planning for future use. Both of their resolutions are attached to this document. I have drafted a resolution that is specific to the interests of Eastern Market but I would also ask you to consider endorsing the full range of objectives that are delineated in the CHRS resolution. Therefore I ask EMCAC to consider the following:
Motion: Ms. Opper-Weiner moved/Ms. Eck seconded the motion:
WHEREAS the Saturday and Sunday flea markets are an important part of the historic character and fabric of Eastern market and
WHEREAS, the flea markets are an important part of the overall business economy of the market and 7th street
WHEREAS, the Hine property continues to be the site of Saturday and Sunday flea market vending
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that EMCAC calls on the District government to begin a community planning process for the future use of the Hine site
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any future use matches the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhood, especially Eastern Market and that any development proposal should include:
· One or 2 levels of underground parking for residential and commercial weekend parking at eastern Market;
· Plan for an outdoor area for craft vendors, food vendors and flea market;
· and endorses the objectives set forth by the capital Hill Restoration Society.
There was discussion. Mr. Layman expressed concern that EMCAC was taking a position when there needed to be a broader look at planning for the site. Mr. Burger questioned the viability of the items given the needs of developers who might be looking at the site. Ms. Scheeder responded that the resolution was a placeholder for EMCAC and was not meant to be the last word on the subject.
The motion passed 8-2, with Mr. Burger and Mr. Layman in opposition.
9. Treasurer’s Report
Mr. Gallo did not present a Treasurer’s Report.
The next meetings of EMCAC will be on Wednesdays, March 26th, April 23rd, June 25th, July 23rd, August 27th, and September 24th.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.