Posted tagged ‘Hebrew Home for the Aged’

Reminder — Meeting on Developing the Old Hebrew Home is Thursday

May 24, 2017

Here’s a reminder that on Thursday, May 25th, the next public meeting is scheduled for the redevelopment of the old Hebrew Home on Spring Road. The flyer is below. You can read an overview of the June 3, 2016, meeting here.

Community Opportunity to Review Proposals for Redeveloping the old Hebrew Home on Spring Road

May 11, 2017

Following the community meetings on April 9, 2016, and June 2, 2016 as part of the OurRFP process to redevelopment the former Hebrew Home for the Aged at 1125 Spring Rd, it is finally time for the community to come out and learn about the progress that’s been made for this site. A community meeting has been set for the evening of May 25th regarding the 1125 Spring Road NW project.  At the meeting, development teams will be presenting their visions for the redevelopment of the site and the community will have an opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback.

When: May 25th
Time: 6:30 pm
Where: Raymond Recreation Center

Efforts to Redevelop Hebrew Home Property Still Moving Along

February 10, 2017
The former Hebrew Home and Robeson School site at 1125 Spring Road.

The former Hebrew Home and Robeson School site at 1125 Spring Road.

The District’s efforts to find a developer for the former Hebrew Home for the Aged at 1125 Spring Road are making progress. Two public meetings were held to solicit community input through the OurRFP process, one on April 9, 2016, and a follow up meeting on June 2, 2016. Following these meetings, the RFP was issued July 1, 2016.

The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) received nine proposals from the following development teams in response to the RFP:

  • Borger Management and Spectrum Management
  • Gilbane Development Company and NHT-Enterprise
  • Duball and Bundy Development Corp.
  • Community Preservation and Development Corporation (CPDC) and NVR
  • Telesis Corp.
  • Mission First, UrbanMatters Development and Lock7 Development
  • NHP Foundation, Fivesquares Development, and Warrenton Group
  • Victory Housing and Brinshore Development
  • Bozzuto Homes and The Menkiti Group

The next step in the process will be for DMPED to coordinate with ANCs 1A and 4C, and the community, to review the concepts and garner comments on which proposals are considered most promising. This could happen withing the next few weeks with the ANCs considering formal positions at their March meetings.

Inaugural Evelyn Greenberg Preservation Awards Includes Recognition of Historic Hebrew Home Building

August 4, 2016

On June 9, 2016, the Jewish Historical Society of Greater Washington (JHSGW) presented their inaugural Evelyn Greenberg Preservation Awards — a tribute for Evelyn Greenberg, who was instrumental in re-discovering and saving the historic 1876 Adas Israel synagogue from the wrecker’s ball in 1969. The building is destined to be moved again as a result of the Capitol Crossing project.

Two Greenberg Preservation Awards were presented this year. I received one for my work that resulted in the successful nomination of the buildings at 1125-1131 Spring Road, NW — the former home of the Hebrew Home of the Aged and the JSSA (Jewish Social Service Agency). Both properties are now on the D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites and listed on the National Register.

I thought you would enjoy watching the video of the event, and my presentation on the history of the Hebrew Home, which was released yesterday by the JHSGW and view-able below.

Support for Affordable Housing, Dense Development, & Sustainability Outcome of Second Hebrew Home Meeting

June 3, 2016

More than 100 community members from both Ward 1 and Ward 4 attended the second OurRFP meeting on June 2nd and indicated strong preferences for the site to be developed with significant affordable housing, sustainable public spaces, and density maximized through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process.

IMG_0625(DMPED’s Tsega Bekele addressing the community at the start of the meeting.)

The meeting began at Raymond Recreation Center with an introduction from Deputy Mayor Brian Kenner and included a few words from Ward 1 Councilmember Briannne Nadeau. Afterward, DMPED’s Tsega Bekele provided an overview of some of the priorities that came out of the first OurRFP meeting — such as support for affordable housing, housing for families and seniors, and units that are ADA accessible. Bekele also informed the group on some of the next steps in the process. These included issuing the formal RFP in late June, followed by a pre-response conference and developer submissions.

It was noted that some of the priorities expressed in either of the OurRFP meetings would have their own process and opportunities for community engagement outside of the RFP process. Examples mentioned were the BZA process should the development seek fewer parking spaces than required by Zoning, the Zoning process should the property be developed as a PUD, and a review by the Historic Preservation Review Board for elements that involve the historic Hebrew Home building.

After the presentation, community members were allowed to post dots on three boards to indicate their highest priorities. It is important to note that all of the options on the boards were considered priorities identified during the first meeting. Each resident was given six dots, two of each of the three colors, with which to vote.

IMG_0626(Neighbors visiting the three topic boards and placing stickers on their priorities at Raymond Recreation Center.)

The outcome of the voting broke down in the following ways.

Housing Priorities

The highest priorities identified were affordable housing and housing for seniors.

  • More than 30% of the units set aside as affordable housing — 47%
  • Additional units to target moderate income/workforce housing (50-80% AMI) — 5%
  • Opportunities for Homeownership — 10%
  • Family-sized units — 16%
  • Housing reserved for seniors — 18%
  • Accessible Units (for persons with disabilities) — 4%

Public Space & Sustainability

The highest priority identified was Sustainable public space

  • Active use (e.g. playground, splash park, dog park, educational programming) — 18%
  • Passive uses (e.g. green spae, community garden, benches) — 20%
  • Sustainable public space improvements (e.g. stormwater management, sustainable landscaping, permeable surfaces) — 38%
  • Active, engaged street (upgrades to 10th street exceeding DDOT standards, bike parking, benches) — 20%
  • Public art — 4%

Design and Density

The highest priorities identified were maximizing density and incorporating elements of the historic building into the design.

  • Density Maximized through a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) — 48%
  • Historic elements incorporated in the design — 30%
  • Modern/Contemporary style of design — 2%
  • Exceed green building requirements — 19%

In closing and reporting out the results of the exercise, Bekele noted that all of the items on the boards are considered priorities to some extent as they all came out of the first OurRFP workshop. The purpose of the exercise during the second workshop was to help DMPED rank the priorities based on the community’s input. This, in turn, will help DMPED to review the forthcoming RFP submissions and make decisions with the community priorities in mind.

Materials from the workshop will eventually be posted on the DMPED page devoted to 1125 Spring Road.

IMG_0630(DMPED’s Tsega Bekele sharing the results of the priority boards and closing the meeting.)

Second OurRFP Meeting on old Hebrew Home Scheduled for June 2nd

May 18, 2016

The second OurRFP meeting on the future development of the old Hebrew Home property at 1125 Spring Road has been scheduled for Thursday, June 2nd, at 7 p.m. Like the first meeting, it will be held at Raymond Recreation Center (3725 10th Street, NW).

The purpose of this second engagement is to reconnect with the community about its ideas shared at the April 9th Workshop and Online Engagement Forum.  Residents will also be provided an opportunity to further prioritize their preferences for the redevelopment of the site.  RSVP in advance at

The first OurRFP meeting was held on April 9th, and you can read my report from that meeting here.

1125 Spring Road June 2

Councilmember Bowser Hosts 1125 Spring Road Meeting to Assess DGS/DCHA Proposal

September 16, 2014
The former Hebrew Home and Robeson School site at 1125 Spring Road.

The former Hebrew Home and Robeson School site at 1125 Spring Road.

Last night, Ward 4 Councilmember Muriel Bowser hosted a small group meeting at the Raymond Recreation Center to discuss last week’s proposal by the Department of General Services & the DC Housing Authority to redevelopment the former Hebrew Home property at 1125 Spring Road. Other participants in the group meeting included:

  • Commissioner Vann-Di Galloway (ANC 4C06);
  • Commissioner Kent Boese (ANC 1A08);
  • Commissioner Patrick Flynn (ANC 1A06);
  • David Dzidzenyo (Petworth Action Committee); and,
  • Jose Vicar (Friends of the Former Hebrew Home)

The meeting began with the DC Housing Authority’s Development Project Manager, Alastair Smith, giving a recap of the proposal for those in attendance who had not attended last week’s meeting. After Smith was finished, the meeting participants — beginning with Commissioner Galloway — each introduced themselves, spoke about the public engagement process, and spoke about their views on the current proposal.

Commissioner Galloway spoke about his support for a 100% affordable project, but that he could live with 10% market rate in the mix. He also commented on the parking being proposed and other related issued. Other topics touched upon included the need for DDOT to perform a traffic study and address if the units would be owned or rented by Commissioner Flynn; the role of Government and public land use as well as examples of other successful affordable projects in the area by Commissioner Boese; and a question about why 80% AMI was not included as part of the question by Mr. Vicar. There was also discussion on the scale/size of the project, whether or not rowhouses could be incorporated into the project, and how realistic the requested subsidy might be.

What was particularly noteworthy was the level of agreement among those in the small group — and in the room in general — on the overall proposal and its inclusion of a strong mix of income levels.

Hebrew Home affordability breakdown(Proposed breakdown of unit affordability for the Hebrew Home property).

Perhaps no more than 30 residents were in attendance at the meeting. Due to the size of the group, Councilmember Bowser broadened participation to all those who had questions. Bowser herself asked questions related to the size of the proposed subsidy ($18-20 million) and whether or not the DC Housing Authority thought that it was achievable, what the timeline for the project was estimated to be, and answered questions related to the surplussing and disposition of the property.

DCHA’s Smith and DGS’s Stephen Campbell acknowledged that $20 million was on the high end, but stated that there were other projects in the pipeline with similar requests. With regards to the timeline, they expressed a project that would include working through the public process for most of 2015 (including presentations at ANC meetings, review by the DC Council, etc.), perhaps 6 months to get through the permit process, and in the best case scenario beginning construction in early 2016.

Among the additional items I sought clarification on were the impact a smaller financial subsidy could have on the project, the opportunity for continued dialogue as the project moved forward, and the development’s architecture. Noting that some in the community have expressed concern that 200 units was too large, I asked if a lesser subsidy were provided if that could result in the project being scaled down, the mix of affordability adjusted, or some other tweaks to the plan. Should that happen, I also asked if those changes would be part of the community process. With regards to architecture, I requested that the final project be something compatible with the surrounding community and  designed in a manner that enhances the surrounding neighborhood.

The Housing Authority’s Executive Director, Adrianne Todman, in her address noted that once the project was completed, the Housing Authority would get a private management company. Responding to a point I had made earlier that a project is only as good as its management, Todman agreed, noting that she felt a private manager could more easily be held accountable for the daily operations of the building.

Responding to the comment on architecture, Smith stated that they also believed in delivering a high-quality project and for that reason had identified Wiencek + Associates — the architect of The Avenue (3506 Georgia) — as an architect they are interested in due to their proven record.

Hebrew Home property lines(Overview of the Hebrew Home property showing the property to be developed (red) and the property that would revert to the city to create an official ‘open’ 10th Street).

Interestingly, the Housing Authority also stated that they would be pursuing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as the property will need to be rezoned for a multi-unit building. Bowser noted that a PUD could add 12 months to the project and stated that if this project moved too slowly that it would be better to submit proposals to the Council in January (noting that anything submitted before January would die in committee). Alternatively, Bowser also suggested that one of the reasons to have DCHA involved in the development was so that the schedule could be more aggressive. Should this not be possible, it is possible that the Committee on Economic Development may only consider the Surplus Resolution for the property before January with the idea that it could make it through Council and the Mayor’s office as well.

Bowser stated that her next steps are to schedule another meeting with DGS and DCHA to get a more solid idea on the timeline for the project.

The next public presentation with be at the October 8th meetings of ANC 1A and ANC 4C. It is expected that both Commissions will consider whether or not to support the current proposal.

%d bloggers like this: