BUILDING 2 COMMUNITY VISIONING CHARRETTE 2015 WARREN G. MAGNUSON PARK What is the Future of Magnuson Park?s Most Historic Building? - BUILDING 2 - Warren G. Magnuson Park Saturday, June 6, 2015, 1 - 5 PM Tour the building Meet experts and explore development possibilities Learn about this historic asset and share your perspectives ii photo Spike Mafford BUILDING 2 “COMMUNITY VISIONING CHARRETTE” JUNE 6, 2015, 1-5 PM WARREN G. MAGNUSON PARK Hosted by Magnuson Park Advisory Committee (MPAC) Organized by Julianna Ross, Consultant to Magnuson Park and Secretary, MPAC Speakers: Cheryl Fraser, Director, Regional Parks, Seattle Parks and Recreation Loren Hill, Chair, Magnuson Park Advisory Committee Kevin Bergsrud, Senior Planning and Development Specialist Volunteer Facilitators, Finance Topic: Brian Judd, Manager, Magnuson Park Chandra Hampson, Community Volunteer Volunteer Facilitators, Programming and Collaborative Partnerships Topic: Ed Bronsdon, Vice Chair, Magnuson Park Advisory Committee Jordan Royer, Community Volunteer Other Volunteers: Peter Fuerbringer (tour guide) Christopher Gasper (registration) JoAnn Gunter (tour guide) Spike Mafford (photography) Kevin Volkmann (note taking) Pete Zimmerman (registration) Attendees (76): Superintendent Jesùs Aguirre, Tom Ansart, Kristina Bammert, Kim Bateman, Julie Bergen, Brooke Best, Richard Best, Maureen Brain, Paul Brandl, Rachel Brooks, Nancy Chang, Bill Chao, Amy Coloma, Camryn Coloma, Connor Coloma, Wil Coloma, Jennifer Conry, Faith Cook, Karin Cook, Rob Cook, Laura Corvi, Pamela Derry, David Doxtater, Lisa Dutton, Joe Max Emminger, Timothy Fenlason, Lynn Ferguson, Arden Forrey, Gabrielle Gerhard, Councilmember Jean Godden, Jeff Grashin, Kristen Haberthur, Gabe Hajiani, Willa Halperin, Walt Halperin, Flip Herndon, Bob Hickey, Loren Hill, Timm Hines, Dianne Hofbeck, Donna James, MarLen Kaiser, Rep. Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney, Diana Kincaid, Max Krause, Amy Lillard, Spike Mafford, Frank Martin, Addie Michaelsen, Mike Millay, Captain Ron Miller, Collin Natterstad, Mike Ness, Dam Nguyen, Brian Norman, Katie Oman, Jerry Osborn, Lt. Governor Brad Owen, Rep. Gerry Pollet, Peggy Printz, Tovo Rovainen, Gary Schatz, James Schatz, Greg Scully, Kelly Snyder, Don Starkweather, Lorrie Starkweather, Andrew Thornhill, Margaret Thouless, Wendy Truitt, Frank Video, Neale Weaver, Lisa White, John Wick, Dan Youmans, Andrea Zenger, Pete Zimmerman 1 Building 2 Warren G. Magnuson Park, Seattle June 6, 2015, 1 – 5 PM Community Visioning Charrette hosted by Magnuson Park Advisory Committee AGENDA Charrette Objective: Involve the most interested community stakeholders in learning about and providing input on reuse of Building 2. Capture community opinions, knowledge and insights, and provide the opportunity for new partnerships and collaborations to take root. Begin the process of openly sharing information between interested citizens, user groups, and Seattle Parks (building manager) and potential organizations/developers which would renovate the building and operate programs (long-term partners). 1:00 PM: Attendees meet on east side of Building 2 and check in. Welcoming remarks and tour. 2:10 PM: Attendees arrive through lobby of Brig and out to the amphitheater. Welcoming remarks, tabletop presentations by potential developers and other information including 4Culture, CitySide Lacrosse Academy, Friends of Naval Air Station Sand Point, Next Step Archery, Seattle Office of Arts and Culture, Seattle Office of Film and Music and Skate Like a Girl. 2:40 PM: Attendees move to their designated rooms to discuss one of two topics. Room #1 is Finance. Room #2 is Uses and Collaborative Partnerships. 3:10 PM: Room switch; second topic. 3:50 PM: Reporting out. What did you say? What did we learn? 4:30 PM: Closing remarks, explanation of next steps. 2 BUILDING 2 BIG BUILDING, BIG CHALLENGES, BIG OPPORTUNITIES Why a charrette? More often known as a workshop, this event was called a charrette in keeping with two previous events, one in 2001 and the other in 2013. The term “charrette” is derived from the French word for “little cart.” In Paris during the 19th century, professors at the Ecole de Beaux Arts circulated with little carts to collect final drawings from their students. Students would jump on the “charrette” to put finishing touches on their presentation minutes before the deadline. Due to the number of registered attendees (400), this particular event changed into more of a public meeting, in which stakeholders became aware of challenges and possible solutions. The following statement was shared with presenters of the day with the intent of fostering a spirit of collaboration rather than competition: “A successful visioning charrette achieves a shared vision and helps to defuse potential confrontational attitudes between different community stakeholders by providing a common understanding of issues, opportunities and challenges. This process is also extremely useful for identifying potential threats that could arise later in the project. A charrette can also help the project teams understand the steps required to arrive at a shared vision.” 3 COMMUNITY OUTREACH This event was originally conceived to involve as diverse a cross-section of the community as possible. The event invitation was sent to MPAC members to distribute and was posted on the MPAC Facebook page. It was also sent to each presenter to use in promotions. Sand Point Arts and Cultural Exchange, Friends of Naval Air Station Sand Point and Next Step Archery are a few organizations known to have distributed the invitation to their lists. The consultant opted to have attendees register through free online ticketing services for the ability to give registrants driving and parking directions as well as notify of any venue changes based on attendance levels or weather. Originally planned to take place in the Officers Club with a maximum occupancy of 150, the immediate and enthusiastic response seemed to necessitate moving to a larger facility. Without being able to contact registrants, detailed information about what to expect from the building tour, and directions to multiple locations and venue changes could not have been communicated as efficiently. In addition to the email invitation, a press release was sent and the following outlets are known to have promoted: Seattle Department of Neighborhoods blog ● Magnuson Park newsletter ● Next Step Archery website ● Seattle Office of Film and Music Facebook page ● Wedgwood Community Council website ● 4Culture blog Daily Journal of Commerce ● NW Film Forum blog ● Hewitt Architecture website ● skyscrapercity.com Northeast District “News You Can Use” e-news ● Sand Point Arts and Cultural Exchange website Greenlake Community Council website ● Seattle Parks and Recreation e-news (Parkways) Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation blog Seattle Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation blog 4 After the tour of Building 2, participants gathered in the outdoor amphitheater behind the Brig, where they were able to learn more about the plans of the "Magnuson Park Center for Excellence," and also how Seattle’s film industry would use the building. Several independent private and non-profit finance professionals were invited Chris Swenson, Deb Twersky and Matthew Richter ready to to present including Union answer questions about public cultural funding, the film industry and the dearth of cultural spaces in Northeast Bank, Washington Community Reinvestment Seattle. Association, Beneficial State Bank, HomeStreet and the community development departments of Wells Fargo and Chase. Unfortunately, none were able to attend but are now on the contact list for future Building 2 development meetings. Bill Chao of Next Step Archery and Lt. Governor Brad Owens showcase their proposal for an Olympics scale sports facility. To facilitate learning, attendees were encouraged to complete a multiple choice game card to win a basket of items and experiences donated by Magnuson Park organizations. Many thanks to Cascade Bicycle Club, artist Cheryl Brown, Magnuson Community Center, Waldorf High School, Outdoors for All, Sand Point Arts and Cultural Exchange, Sail Sand Point, Thistle Theatre, Seattle Musical Theatre, Tennis Center Sand Point, GreenStage and the Mountaineers for their generous contributions! 5 Captain Ron Miller, one of the last Commanding Officers of Naval Air Station Sand Point, enjoying the day. Finance Topic (10 minutes each question x 2 groups) Thank you to volunteer notetaker Kevin Volkmann Question 1: What is the Parks Department’s or the City’s role in insuring public use and ownership of Building 2? What are the consequences or benefits of public investment? Highlights of community input: People will look to the City for an overview and standards for appropriate use of public resources in the building. Assuring access to the public is a key role for the City. Broad public use with a lot of diversity should be a City goal. The City role is the long-term stewardship of the park, making sure that the building is there in 50 years and maintained. ● ● Any investment needs to be sustainable for the long-term. Parks & Recreation has budget constraints and private investment should be solicited. The restoration of the building will be a major expense. Private investment and revenue streams should be sought as uses. Large organizations with resource should be sought, whether they involve culture or sports. Proposals for uses of the building will be more elitist due to the large expense of rehabilitating the build. The public interest is seeing that the building is maintained. ● Seeing the park as a whole in a long-term comprehensive plan is a role for the City. The City should maintain a vision for how the park is to be used that includes smaller scale activities. ● The City role is to designate uses instead of users. The City should maintain event spaces, large recreational spaces, and workshops that encourage a type of activity without regard to who might use it. Question 2: How do you feel about the use of public funding (local, state, federal)? What do you expect as a return from that funding? Audience question: Can you fill us in on current government funding? Parks: Anything is possible. There is no City funding budget now, but this could change with advocacy. ● Revenue-neutral structure should be a goal for private investment. Given a private fee structure, there should be scholarships available to allow greater access. Private funding is important. Nothing will happen without private capital involvement. Nonprofit versus corporate uses are preferred. Access is a key issue. Revenues are required for this project. Fees to the public must be levied to pay for the facilities. 6 Finance Topic, continued... Question 3: What role should this building play in contributing economically to the Parks Department? The City has been criticized for seeking revenues. Buildings should only have to support themselves and not have to support other park facilities. Lessees should not be expected to contribute to the general park infrastructure. The use should create a larger regional visitor draw. Use as a sound-stage only is not appropriate due to large public demand for indoor sports space. Taxes should not support park buildings for private business. ● ❧ Programs and Collaborative Partnerships Topic (10 minutes each question x 2 groups) No volunteer notetaker available Question 1: What uses of this building would best complement what is currently available in the park? What’s missing in the park? What is there too much of? Highlights of community input: Young people need access to indoor space for recreation. There is some lacrosse in the park already. We need archery and lacrosse. Lots of different uses for other sports too. Swimming pool ● Parks Dept. needs to reaffirm commitment to arts/cultural uses; the original footprint is shrinking. As the biggest building, would be good to take advantage of arts and performance. Performing arts – the unique architecture presents a good opportunity. Recreation and arts are complementary. ● There are already lots of opportunities for youth recreation in the park. This is the only building big enough to house an airplane. How do we integrate these ideas? ● Question 2: Are the proposed uses flexible enough to work with other uses? Some uses may be unable to raise the required capital or may not be able to sustain themselves over time. What happens if this occurs? Archery is flexible and can have its equipment cleared. Archery supporters are trying to get other uses, provide community access. Build flexibility into design – sports can be flexible. ● Are there uses for Seattle Public Schools like a pool or other educational uses? Could use building to make connection between schools and art? NE Seattle has a lack of pools. ● 7 Programs and Collaborative Partnerships, continued... What is Magnuson Park plan? Need certain dates to be determined for public use. Define building by use rather than tenant. ● Question 3: How do potential uses impact traffic, circulation, pedestrian access? ● Speed bumps, NOAA road opened, bike access needed. Park needs wayfinding Access for people of all abilities ● Artists work all hours, do not create traffic. Archery classes happen in evenings, 5:30pm – 9:00pm 8 CONCLUSION: The day ended on time a little after 4:30 with many participants expressing positive feelings that the day was a good use of their time and enabled them to learn about alternative ideas and the existing community of Magnuson Park stakeholders. 29% of attendees participated in a post-event survey of which 82% indicated the event was extremely or very well organized. A little over 72% felt the information presented during the day was either extremely or quite useful. Over 60% felt extremely or quite comfortable asking questions throughout the day, though 27% were only moderately comfortable and 9% were not comfortable asking questions. 63% felt all or most of the event’s objectives were met, while 37% felt only half or fewer of the objectives were met. Well over 60% expressed a strong interest in attending and participating in future community events regarding Building 2. For many, the day held an uncomfortable sense of competition between arts and athletic interests. This is illustrated by two comments gleaned from the post-event survey: “The presenters appeared to be biased on what they would want done with the property and tended to push personal agendas with regards to arts and culture.” “I did not see ANY “objectives” for the event, other than the obvious objective of the Archery interests in taking over the project! This was supposed to be community input, asking what the “community” would like to have in the building. I was really upset by this obvious attempt by the Archery interests to control how the building would be used.” Much criticism was given to the registration process, which the consultant attributes to not achieving stakeholder buy-in on the objectives of the day. Many potential attendees saw the registration as a chance to voice their support for one project over another without intending to actually participate in the community meeting. However, the registration system worked very well in giving clear directions about the multiple locations involved in the event, along with parking directions, and was an effective way of addressing the wayfinding confusion so prevalent within Magnuson Park. If registration is used in the future for community events like this, there should be better norms established with the presenters/stakeholders so nobody feels the need to register unnecessarily to show their support for any one project. 9 The consultant makes the following recommendations: 1.) Seattle Parks and Recreation should take a leadership role with Building 2 and facilitate a path for potential developers to make progress, while honoring the community’s 2012 strategic plan for the park. This may involve deadlines, funding commitments and programmer contracts. 2.) Use feedback from this event to design productive future meetings and accomodate a variety of stakeholders. 3.) Assist any and all potential developers by keeping the building maintained in a condition suitable for occasional tours. 4.) To secure the park's future low-power FM community radio station and enable its ability to broadcast terrestrially (especially important in emergency situations), Seattle Parks and Recreation should take necessary steps to ensure the right to install a pole and antenna on the building in perpetuity no matter who the developer. 5.) Define and require historical signage or markers for all future development of the park’s historical properties. ❧ 10 APPENDIX Press release Tour guide notes Tour maps Building 2 history and context Questionnaire (game card) Unfiltered session notes Post-event survey results 2013 charrette report What is the Future of Magnuson Park’s Most Historic Building? $30 million Project Seeks Community Input on Uses and Funding For Immediate Release May 29, 2015 Contact: Julianna Ross, Magnuson Park Advisory Committee 206.245.5457 Seattle, Wa. - On Saturday, June 6, from 1pm – 5pm, the community is invited to take part in a visioning charrette regarding development of the park’s most historically significant building, Building 2. The day begins with a rare 40-minute tour of the building. From there, attendees will go to the Officers Club in the newly renovated Building 30 down the street to view current plans and gather information pertinent to the building’s redevelopment which is sure to take a complex mix of partners and funding. The public’s thoughts will be recorded throughout the breakout sessions of the day and used to inform Seattle Parks and Recreation’s support for the building’s development. Representatives will be on hand from the Seattle Office of Arts and Culture, the Seattle Office of Film and Music and Next Step Archery (as part of their larger project, Magnuson Park Center for Excellence). The film industry has long had an interest in using the building as a sound stage, while the Magnuson Park Center for Excellence is hoping to turn the building into a sports complex featuring archery, lacrosse and other athletic uses. In addition to potential developers, information will be available regarding possible funding mechanisms and historical building facts placing it in context within the park and its many master plans. Originally constructed in 1929, the building is comprised of two airplane hangars and many office and studio areas throughout its 144,000 square feet. Attendees are asked to register for the event at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/building-2-magnuson-park and come prepared to learn, contribute ideas and problem solve around the many aspects of the project. This event is hosted by the Magnuson Park Advisory Committee (MPAC). ### Building 2 Workshop Tour Script June 6, 2015 Stop Location Details 1 Center Building East Side Welcome to Building 2, known during most of the Navy era as the “A&R Hangar”. This stood for “Assembly & Repair” and was where major aircraft repairs were made, from rebuilding wings to cleaning engines and replating metal parts. Building 2 contains approximately 144,200 SF. Over four phases the building was constructed and enlarged from 1929 to 1941. Phase 1 included the North Hangar and offices. Phase 4 included the South Hangar and South Workshops. Notice the Art Deco emblem over the south hangar doors. 2 South Hangar SE Corner The South Hangar measures approximately 190 FT by 160 FT, containing approximately 32,500 SF. There is 45 FT clear space from finished floor to bottom of truss. Building 2 existed as the “A&R Hangar” until 1951-53 when its functions were closed and transferred to Naval Air Station (NAS) Alameda. From the 1950s until the 1990s, the Navy used the hangar for various functions and even rented portions to other federal agencies. In the mid-1980s the North Hangar and Center Offices were renovated and used as a Coast Guard Reserve facility.   3 North Hangar NE Corner Now let’s walk to the North Hangar. This was the original hangar and one of the first Navy buildings constructed on the base in 1929. Phase 2 construction included a north wing office extension and west wing workshops. The North Hangar measures approximately 100 FT by 160 FT, containing approximately 15,500 SF. There is 24 FT clear space from finished floor to bottom of truss. Most of the North Wing currently houses the Seattle Parks’ training program, Seattle Conservation Corps. Offices and classrooms occupy the 2nd floor while material and equipment storage occupies the 1st floor. In 2014 Seattle Parks invested approximately $1.2 million to reroof the North Wing. Relative to future building redevelopment it has not been fully determined if the SCC must remain. If they were to be displaced, finding them a new location would be required. 4 West Workshops As we walk to the West Workshops note the south wall. This was the original exterior wall of the hangar and is likely unreinforced masonry, an item which would require seismic strengthening (a.k.a. seismic upgrades). The West Workshops consist of two floors. The 1st floor contained painting, dope, plating and engine repair shops while 2nd floor contained instrument shops during World War II. Where we are standing now at one time was open to the 2nd floor as part of the parachute shop.   5 Center Offices We will now be heading to a stairway leading to the 2nd floor. During a rehearsal yesterday we realized that there were too many trip hazards on the floors and so will not be touring this area. This area contained the first aircraft instrument repair shop. Markings on the walls and floor sections that are missing demonstrate the work that the Naval Facilities (NAVFAC) Command has completed to remove radium paint residues. In 2009, during historic preservation review for Building 27/Arena Sports renovations a “Radium Room” was discovered on a floor plan. During follow up research another instrument repair room was found in the Center section of Building 2. In 2006 NAVFAC began work to identify all radiological traces in and around Buildings 2 and 27. From 2012 to May 2015 NAVFAC managed contractors to remove all materials showing higher than background radiation levels. (Walking east through an open area and towards a second stairwell) Towards the end of military use, this area contained offices for the Coast Guard Reserve. During removal of radium, NAVFAC contractors removed carpeting, walls, etc. in order to reach contaminated areas. Note the divided light windows on the north side of this space. If these were renovated there would be additional daylight and views into the North Hangar. We are now heading downstairs and to the last stop on our tour, the South Workshops.   Stop Location Details 6 South Workshops 1st Floor The South Workshops were the last sections constructed in Building 2. These initially contained additional paint shops. (point to large bay at east end) This bay contains a large paint booth. We will be entering the bay next to it so that you can see the high level of daylighting. Now we will head back out to the main hangar and then to the 2nd floor. 7 South Workshops 2nd Floor The second floor was only developed in four of the seven bays. Actually over the west bays there are large ducts and air handling systems to vent the paint shop and other shops. While we are here note that some of the walls are constructed with non-reinforced clay block. These are the blocks with striations on the surface. These blocks are notoriously brittle. Also note the post beam framework constructed for the mezzanine areas. These are not fully connected to the floor and would likely require structural ties and/ or bracing to meet current seismic and building codes. Now let’s head down to the main hangar where we will conclude today’s tour. At that point I can answer any additional questions you may have. 8 South Hangar Outside Hangar Doors This is the last stop on today’s tour. We are standing about mid point on the parcel which includes Building 2. During the Navy era many more repair buildings were located here but were demolished prior to conveying to the city. Currently the Seattle Conservation Corps uses the majority of this area for material storage and fleet parking. An adjacent parcel to the northwest contains the former base steam plant, Building 12. Redevelopment of Building 2 may include this areas for parking or other accessory uses.Thanks again for spending a good part of your Saturday with us out at Magnuson Park. WEST WORKSHOPS m3 [El E37. mm us . El I77 TOUREND A TO STOP #6 SOUTH HANGAR 5 NORTH HANGAR 32548 SF 15484 SF i ME SOUTH WORKSHOPS 14356 SF CENTER NORTH LP 4 WORKSHOPS WORKSHOPS 15045 SF 10400 SF T45 FROM STOP #4 429' BUILDING 2 SOUTH WORKSHOPS 14356 SF 7727 63RD AVE NE SOUTH HANGAR 32543 SF CENTER WORKSHOPS 15045 SF GROUND FLOOR NORTH HANGAR 15484 SF WEST WORKSHOPS 9604 SF NORTH WORKSHOPS 10400 SF TOTAL 97437 SF "a $va 459 ?a ?Em mz_z