Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Okay. Welcome. This is the National Capital Planning Commission's July
11, 2013 meeting. If you would please, please stand and join
me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Again, welcome. I do note that today's meeting
is being live-streamed on the NCPC website. We do have a quorum and the meeting is now
called to order and we will proceed with the agenda as has been publicly noticed and advertised.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 1 is the Report of the Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: And I only have one item to note and that is to remind my colleagues
here of the July 24th, 10:00 a.m., Special Workshop on the Height Act. So you have been
previously notified. Please, make sure that July 24, 10:00 a.m. to noon, is on your calendars
for the Commission work session on the Height Act Study and it will be right here.
Agenda Item No. 2 is the Report of the Executive Director, Mr. Acosta.
MR. ACOSTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.
Just piggybacking on the Height Act discussion, as you note in front of you, there is a series
of public meetings that we are going to have on Phase 2 of our Height Act Study. You will
hear a bigger presentation later today by David Zaidain and also at our July 24th meeting,
but we would like to invite members of the public to attend these public meetings.
They will be held between August 3rd and August 13th. You can go to our website and you'll
find out more information about details and locations of these meetings. We also invite
our Commissioners to attend these meetings, too.
I know that many of you attended the Phase 1 meetings and I hope they were very instructive
in terms of getting information from the public and also hearing their views.
I would also like to thank the Commission for -- Commissioner Hart, Wright and Tregoning
for attending the June 20th and 21st meeting that we had with the National Academy of Science
Infrastructure Board. They have convened a panel of experts to provide advice on infrastructure
projects and governance in the Southwest Eco District.
We also were joined by members of GSA and the Mayor's Office and other federal and local
agencies to discuss how to move this project forward. I think the results were very interesting
and good and we will report more about the conclusions of that at a future meeting.
I would like to make some personnel announcements. First, we would like to welcome back John
William Carroll. He is a returning summer intern from the District of Columbia Summer
Youth Employment Program. He is a rising junior at the University of Oklahoma majoring in
meteorology. And he will assist with the Agency's Record Management Program.
I would also like to welcome back a community planner, Sarah Moulton, who will be working
-- who will re rejoining our Physical Planning Division.
And finally, I would like to announce that David Zaidain who has been with the Commission
since 2002 is leaving NCPC tomorrow to become Amtrak's Project Director for its Union Station
Redevelopment Project. As you know, David has worked on our Comprehensive
Plan Update and Height of Buildings Master Plan. We thank David for his very important
contributions to the Commission and wish him all the best at his new position at Amtrak.
So congratulations to David. MR. ACOSTA: He will also be presenting today,
so we will get an opportunity to say our farewells. So anyway, that concludes my report. Thank
you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Acosta. And
we, too, will miss David very much. He has been here for 10 years and done excellent
work. I'm pleased others are recognizing his professionalism and I look forward to continuing
to cross paths in your new role. We will miss you.
Agenda Item No. 3 is the Legislative Update and, Ms. Schuyler.
MS. SCHUYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three items which I would like to report.
The first is House of Representatives Bill 588, which I have been discussing with you
off and on for the past few months. This is the House Bill that would allow donor
recognition inside the Vietnam Veterans Visitor Center. This particular act was passed on
May 6th by the House and sent to the Senate. When it reached the Senate, the Senate passed
a substitute bill which broadened the topic to Generic Donor Recognition and Standards
and that would be applicable to all commemorative works.
When the House -- when the Senate sent its version back to the House, the House rejected
that and they reinstated its original bill and at the same time created a free-standing
bill, a second bill which is HR 2297, that would address the generic -- the issue of
Generic Donor Recognition. Yesterday the Senate passed this version,
so, therefore, the bill is on its way to the President. And again, this bill will allow
donor recognition at the Vietnam Visitors Memorial Center only.
Now, the other free-standing bill which would address general donor recognition provisions
for all has been introduced, as I said, HR 2297, and this has been referred to-- I'm
sorry, Senate version -- I'm sorry. HR 2395 and it has been sent to Committee
and we are being advised that the Committee expects to hold a hearing on it this month.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Can I -- MS. SCHUYLER: Peter, you perhaps would like
to -- COMMISSIONER MAY: I just want to add that
hearing has been scheduled for the 19th. MS. SCHUYLER: Okay. Okay. The second bill
is Senate version -- Senate 1046, known as the Native American Veterans Memorial Amendment
Act of 2013. And what this is proposing to do is to amend a 1994 Act to allow the construction
of a Native American Veterans Memorial on the property of the National Museum of the
American Indian versus under the current law it is restricted to a location in the interior
of the museum. This has been referred to Committee and it
reflects similar bills that have been introduced in previous sessions of Congress.
The last bill is HR 2297 which is the National Mall Revitalization and Designation Act. This
was introduced by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. She has done so in the last three
Congresses. And what this would do is authorize NCPC to designate and modify the boundaries
of the National Mall, the Reserve area that are available for the location of Commemorative
Works. That has been referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources and its Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you. Any questions or comments for Ms. Schuyler? Hearing none,
thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 4 is the
Consent Calendar. We have two items on the Consent Calendar.
Item 4A is the Building Modernization and Expansion Project at the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau Headquarters. Agenda Item 4B is Phase 2 of the Russell Road
Widening Project at Marine Corps Base Quantico. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: The information has been
before you. Are there any questions on these, either of these two consent items?
COMMISSIONER HART: I had a question on the Russell Road Widening. I didn't see any discussion
about stormwater management, siltation controls. Are there any improvements that are associated
with stormwater management, because this lies immediately adjacent to significant wetlands.
MS. SAUM: Mike Weil is the project officer and he is out today. My recollection is that
that was all addressed in the -- this is Phase 3 of a multi-phase project and that all the
stormwater management was handled as part of previous submissions, but I can review
that again and get back to you. COMMISSIONER HART: Yeah, on the drawings that
were included in the package, the limits of disturbance didn't seem to include anything
other than the road widening and sidewalks. MS. SAUM: That's my understanding is that
it is not going to affect the wetlands that are adjacent to the road.
COMMISSIONER HART: It's surprising because you are doubling the impervious area through
there. MS. SAUM: Well, the wetlands are on the, my
understanding, south side of the road and all of the widening is being done on the north
side of the road, if my recollection serves me properly so that they won't have to disturb
the wetlands. And they are -- there is -- as I said before, when I -- when Mike and I met with the applicant to review all the
drawings. We did see stormwater management material
that was included in the drawings. It may not -- all the discussion of that may not
be included in the EDR, but we can go there with you afterwards if you care --
COMMISSIONER HART: I would appreciate it. If that's the case, that's fine. I just didn't
see anything in the write-up. MS. SAUM: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HART: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Any other questions on either
Consent Agenda item? Hearing none, is there a motion on the Consent
Agenda? It has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye.
ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no? Consent Agenda
is passed. Moving to the Action Items. Agenda Item No.
5A is the Department of Commerce, Herbert Hoover Building Site Improvements and Perimeter
Security, not a new topic. Then we have Mr. Walton.
MR. WALTON: So good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Today GSA has
submitted the Herbert Hoover Building for preliminary and final site development plans
and perimeter security design. The Hoover Building houses the headquarters
for the Department of Commerce as well as the White House Visitor Center along the north
side of the site along Pennsylvania Avenue and the proposed National Aquarium relocation
on the south side of the site along Constitution Avenue.
I'll start with some background. So as you know, the site is located here in the Federal
Triangle between 14th and 15th Streets and Constitution Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue
on what might be the longest site in the city of nearly a quarter mile in length.
Since the revised concept submission, GSA has completed a supplemental environmental
assessment, received a finding of no significant impact. They have also completed a Section
106 Historic Preservation Review and have a signed Memorandum of Agreement with the
consulting agencies. GSA has taken a two-layer approach to the
perimeter security design with the first layer to provide the appropriate balance between
the need to accommodate perimeter security for the building and its occupants and a second
layer maintaining the vitality of the public realm, to provide security within the context
of streetscape enhancements and public realm beautification.
So these images represent the existing conditions around the perimeter of the Hoover Building.
And as you can see, it is in need of some update.
So at the revised concept submission in February, GSA asked or and received approval to place
security elements within the public space. This was in an effort to improve the pedestrian
experience along the almost quarter mile length of 14th and 15th Streets.
The updated elements include bollard design and security walls, cable rail fencing systems,
bike racks, collapsible concrete and planters and Low Impact Development.
The Commission had several comments related to different aspects of the security design.
Those comments were related to the point-loaded collapsible concrete, sidewalk curb cuts,
the visual impact and the scale of those curb cuts along 14th and 15th Streets, assurance
that placing security elements within a public space would, indeed, create a better pedestrian
experience and incorporating a bus shelter, a shelter as part of the security design elements,
and variation and design of the Low Impact Development.
I'll go over how GSA has addressed each of these comments within the context of the perimeter
of security, starting with the pedestrian experience along 14th and 15th Street.
So no both the north and south ends of 14th and 15th Street, GSA has proposed cable rail
fencing as perimeter security. The fencing is located between the curb line and the building
yard along the sidewalks as shown here with the solid red lines and here.
The cable rail fencing is designed to meet the required Level 4 security rating and since
the revised concept submission has been simplified, design material will be more consistent with
DDOT's Streetscape Design Guidelines. The elements within the building yard are
designed to be more consistent with the existing building.
At eight areas around the perimeter of the site, there is an overlap between the security
walls and the cable rail fencing. This overlap creates additional security and it is here
where GSA had proposed the collapsible concrete, but has since removed it.
The thought is is that it would be difficult for cars to maneuver in between the security
wall and the fencing and into the building yard.
GSA has also provided lead-walks, which are wide openings between LID to allow pedestrians
to exit cars and entry into the sidewalk area. These lead-walks are an access with conversational
seating nodes and are located within the building area.
In addition, GSA has provided bike racks as security elements at both ends of 14th Street.
And so it's a combination of all these elements, the bike racks, the fencing, the security
walls, the street trees and the lead-walks as well as the seating nodes that create a
greater and more enhanced pedestrian experience along both 14th and 15th Streets.
Along Constitution Avenue, the proposed National Aquarium relocation has been approved at the
concept level and that includes bollard designs and ramp systems, signage and security fencing
as shown here. It will be located here within this blue bubble at the bottom of the plan.
However, funding isn't available for the aquarium at this time.
And so GSA has proposed placing cable rail fencing and security walls within the building
yard as shown here, which is similar to what is being proposed at 14th and 15th Streets.
Cars go into the site from the 14th and 15th -- into the 14th and 15th Street parking lots
via these pop-up style vehicle barriers shown here on the right. These replace the elements
shown on the left. These elements are similar to those currently being used at the National
Gallery of Art and the State Department. The areas here, the dotted red line shows
the location of those vehicle barriers and plan. The space between the barriers would
be protected by bollards. The Commission also had concerns about the
scale or the size of the openings and curb cuts along 14th and 15th Street. As you can
see, these are pretty wide openings here. And I'll ask you to take a note of where the
location of these medians is because the Commission also had concerns about the visual impact
of cars parking within these curb cuts. You can see the cars that pull right up to the
edge of that median. And so GSA has responded by taking these existing
median strips here and extending those out to the curb line here. So that eliminates
the parking problem. They have also landscaped these curb cuts into these median strips,
so the -- it enhances the public realm and also makes the pedestrian experience a little
better. At the White House Visitor Center, these existing
lawn panels have been extended north and are now in line with the existing planter beds
located here. Now, these planter beds are currently at-grade planter beds, but as part
of that design, those will be extruded up to create raised planter beds.
They will be constructed of reinforced concrete and clad in granite with seating on either
end near the entrance. There will be a row of bollards that are integrated with the existing
light standards, which will be reinforced to serve as security elements as well as across
the entrance. There is a slight slope along Pennsylvania
Avenue between 14th and 15th Street. And so as you can see, the planter beds dip gently
down towards the entrance of the building. At the main entrance on 14th Street, the planter
beds that flank either side of the main entrance plaza will be extended. They will also be
extruded up to create raised planter beds. They will also be constructed of reinforced
concrete, clad in granite with bench seating on all four sides.
As you can see, there is a row of bollards across the existing entrance plaza. In the
revised concept, those bollards were of a grayer, sort of silver with anodized aluminum
color with flagpole shifted slight back off about 10 feet. The current design, you can
see the flagpoles are now in line with the existing bollards. They are sleeved over bollards
to create security elements themselves and the bollards are now a black anodized aluminum
to match other elements around the perimeter of the site.
So along 14th and 15th Street along with the replacement of some street trees here, some
plan will be integrated into a Low Impact Development system, an LID, which is a current
infrastructure system. The LID will be integrated into the existing curb line creating some
modifications to allow storm water to enter into the tree planting area, capturing and
storing stormwater for both the street and from the site.
Now, this approach reduces the load on the existing stormwater and sewer system during
storm events, the design of the LID also and increases -- decreases the impervious surface
around the perimeter of the building by 16 percent and exceeds the DDOE Stormwater Retention
Standard by 67 percent. With that, the Executive Director recommends
that the Commission approves the preliminary final site development plans for the site
improvements and perimeter security at the Hoover Building and notes that should the
concept design come back in for the National Aquarium that the preliminary -- that perhaps
we need to return to NCPC for preliminary and final review.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my presentation. We have members of GSA here, Suzy Hill as
well as representatives from RTKL, the design firm.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Terrific. Thank you, Mr. Walton. This has been a model project as it
has progressed over the various stages. Questions or comments from the Commission Members?
Ms. Wright? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Well, you know, I have
to beat my chest a little bit. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Please do.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: And mostly say thank you. We have had -- it has been a long strange
trip, but we are very proud of the results. And I think the design team and my group at
OPDQ and the Department of Commerce should all be congratulated for their, if nothing
else, patience and persistence. And for my friend and colleague, Mr. Hart,
I just want to make sure that you noticed the stormwater, that we have surpassed the
stormwater management requirement by 32 percent. Did you read that?
COMMISSIONER HART: Unopposed. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay. Good. So a couple
of other notes. One, on the tiger trap, do not despair for those of you who are really
fond of the idea. Do you remember the colorful conversation we had about courses?
Well, there is a tiger trap similar to the one we were looking to install in Battery
Park City, I think. And it had -- it was at 15,000 pounds. Well, that's a little much
for us. So we didn't have time to do the engineering and the testing and the certification, but
never fear, we have the rest of the Federal Triangle to figure it out, because this is
the first building and we have -- we are moving on with IRS, Justice and EPA forthwith, but
this was the important thing to get right and I think we did.
We can argue over the more subjective qualities of the design and I'm anxious to hear from
you, Mr. May, about whether or not you think we hit the target on improving the public
space and the pedestrian experience. We think we did. We can -- there is a lot
to debate about that, but there are certainly objective measures here that we are pretty
happy to have hit. So thank you for your indulgence, everyone. My chest beating is over.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. May, would you like to return volley?
COMMISSIONER MAY: No. I'm very happy with the end result. I do have a couple of questions,
but I do want to particularly note that the non-tiger trap solution and overlaying the
layers of security is a way of meeting the security requirements for the building.
I'm very pleased to know that that has worked, because, you know, that's one of the concerns
that I had is that, you know, we would be -- we would want to pursue this because of
the prospect of having the sidewalk condition unobstructed by bollards, but we wind up with
bollards anyway. And I am glad that we have not wound up with bollards and I plan to use
this whenever I can to point out to our security people that there are ways to solve this,
probably like this without having to use bollards in the public space.
So and overall, I mean, everything else with the project, I think, is quite fine. I'm very
pleased with where it has wound up. I do have a question. Would you mind bringing
up the images of the curb cuts and the driveways and all of that? Because I was particularly
concerned about that. And I saw it all so quickly that, I'm not sure I fully understand
everything. MR. WALTON: That's the existing condition
and that's the proposed. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. Could you go back
to the existing condition for a second again? Yes, see, it's just very hard to see that,
but I know what it looks like in real-life. And then if you could flip slowly through
the other photos? MR. WALTON: Okay. So the proposed is --
COMMISSIONER MAY: Well, hold on. So in this case, what we are actually seeing are people
parked across the sidewalk. So it is well-beyond the --
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Right. The bollards are further interior to the --
COMMISSIONER MAY: No. I think that there are just vehicles stacked up. Let's go to the
next. Is it the next one? No, you had an image of -- there we go. Oh, so maybe that is exactly
what it was, they were just lined up right there.
MR. WALTON: Right. They will park where the lady is walking next to the building.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Right. So it's unfortunate we don't have a view like this that shows
what they are planning to do. Do you have anything like that?
MR. WALTON: I've got a plan that shows -- COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. So we will look at
that more carefully. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: You have another image
though of the plan, that's the listing. MR. WALTON: No, this is the proposed.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: This is the -- COMMISSIONER MAY: It's the proposed.
MR. WALTON: It's the proposed. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: -- proposed? What's
the listing? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That's not right. Because
the curb doesn't come out in the -- all the way to the sidewalk edging in the existing
conditions. MR. WALTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: The median, we do not call it a median.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Yes, so I'm not sure what we are seeing with all of those break-lines,
you know, between the parts of the image. MR. WALTON: I guess if we can go back to the
overall. Whoops, wrong way. Here. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. So if I understand
correctly, in the red box there we are going to see two fairly lengthy islands of green,
right? I'm looking at the south of the lower image, the lower side.
MR. WALTON: The lower? COMMISSIONER MAY: So we are going to see two
fairly large islands of green there? And then the bollard line that crosses. There is going
to be bollards in the middle of that or is the island itself going to provide the security?
What are we going to experience when we walk down the sidewalk there, I guess?
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Please identify yourself. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon. My name is Brian
Cornell. I'm the landscape architect with RTKL Associates working with GSA and the Department
of Commerce on this particular effort. The proposed information as you are seeing
in front of you, we will seek out as we have extended the outer most edge of the curb of
the existing islands so that they align with the island and now aligns with the base of
the curb on either 14th or 15th Street. We are still providing a level pedestrian
-- we are now providing a level pedestrian sidewalk elevation consistent along the entire
length of both 14th and 15th Street eliminating the need for handicap ramps that take you
from the sidewalk pedestrian level down to the vehicular level.
So in a sense, we are almost creating a speed reducing device for vehicles that are entering
from 14th and 15th Street to be queued up to go through security before they enter into
the courtyard. The intent is the extended or the extended
component of the island would be a planted solution. It would be set behind or above
the existing roadway surface, the height to the typical curb. So it would be set up about
6 inches. COMMISSIONER MAY: And then just the line of
security is provided by bollards within that area?
MR. CORNELL: Oh, yes, I'm sorry I missed that. Okay. What we are doing is we are running
the -- the vehicular barriers are placed at the property or the building or aligned with
the building yard line. And then in between each of those vehicular barriers, which obviously
are positioned in the vehicular drive, we are looking at a single -- I think we are
looking at a run of three or four bollards between each of those barriers.
The intent there is to provide the officers who were providing the security screening
operations with the most flexibility and being able to navigate throughout this area.
COMMISSIONER MAY: And there will be a guard booth in there somewhere as well?
MR. CORNELL: That is correct. There is a guard booth that is actually existing, but there
are guard booths at each of the -- COMMISSIONER MAY: The existing will remain?
Is that what you are saying? MR. CORNELL: The existing will remain. We
are looking at potentially relocating some of those guard booths within each area relative
to the -- to each drive as we start looking at utility concerns and conflicts.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would you mind just going
to the plan and pointing out what you are saying? I think I'm following you, but --
MR. CORNELL: Sure. COMMISSIONER WHITE: -- can you show us actually
on the plan? COMMISSIONER MAY: Take a mike.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Take a mike with you. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you.
MR. CORNELL: All right. What we have done is we have taken the proposed perimeter line.
We are running and getting this, okay, looking along 15th Street. We are running it from
the building line where the perimeter line then intersects one of the three existing
drives. We have positioned the vehicular barrier in
line with that. Between each of the vehicular barriers, you can see there is a faint indication
of, I believe there is, a grouping of three bollards between each of the vehicular barriers.
As I have mentioned before, this was intentional in order to provide the officers who, in this
case, would be operating out of the guard booth here, the greatest flexibility in terms
of being able to move throughout and across or through this area and across the drives
to screen the vehicles. And as I have mentioned earlier, what we have
done is we have created a continuous pedestrian pathway outside of that perimeter line, both
on 15th Street and on 14th Street so that the elevation, if you will, for the pedestrians
is a continuous experience, thereby eliminating the need for handicap ramps to get pedestrians
down to the vehicular level, the drive level, only to bring them back up to the sidewalk
level once they pass through this vehicular area.
And then lastly what we have done is currently the islands terminate just show of where the
sidewalk area is. If you go back, you don't have to, but in the photographs the vehicles
that were parked at those -- in those photographs the lanes of the existing island basically
ends at the front of this van. What we are proposing is taking that existing
curb line and extending it out so that it aligns with the curb line or, in this case,
along 14th Street. The new section of island which exists between
the sidewalk and where that curb nose is, if we go back, will be planted. So this little
crescent-shaped or half-circular area would actually be a planted solution.
We are not looking at tying that into the green infrastructure system intentionally,
because we feel that in order to keep vehicles from coming up and driving through the planting
area, obviously, the planting area would be raised up to prevent that from occurring.
COMMISSIONER MAY: So if I understand you correctly, the screening will-- I mean, the officer in
the booth there is going to come out to screen vehicles before they come through the gate,
so they will be doing that in the ramp, if you will, up to the sidewalk?
MR. CORNELL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. And then there was
also something in the report about a prohibition against parking in that area. Is that right?
Did I understand that correctly that they are going to change the policy and nobody
is going to be parking there? Suzy, can you come up?
MS. HILL: Right. Suzy Hill with GSA. Yes, currently, it is illegal parking. And so they
are illegally parking in public space and Commerce actually permits that with the employees.
And so with this project, they will be eliminating that.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. MS. HILL: And they are fully aware of the
need to eliminate that. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. That's very good news.
Okay. So I am still like left wanting for an image of what this looks like, because
it sounds like you are hitting all the right points, but there is nothing that sort of
captures what that actually looks like. So I'm hoping that, you know, you have seen exactly
what it looks like. You have seen images that show you what like in three-dimensions what
that is going to look like? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes. And where the cars
-- COMMISSIONER MAY: And you love it?
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: And this is not the designers doing.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Microphone. COMMISSIONER MAY: I understand.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: We are going light on that here.
COMMISSIONER MAY: I understand. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: But CFA has seen it and
is pointing to this project as a model project to which they are referring --
COMMISSIONER MAY: I'm just asking if you have seen it and --
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: -- other clients. COMMISSIONER MAY: -- if you are happy with
it. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes, of course or I wouldn't
-- COMMISSIONER MAY: That's all.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: -- I don't drag dogs into here.
COMMISSIONER MAY: She has been thumping her chest all day.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: This is my pet project. I'm just as proud as I can be of it, because
it took two runs at it to get here. So yeah, I have seen it. I love it.
COMMISSIONER MAY: A simple yes would have done it. Okay. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: I'm encouraged that the Commerce is going to try to do something
about the parking. I think you better check the agreement that they entered into with
a lot of employees, but I know a lot of them have been given that as a part of their package
that they be able to park and that is going to be maybe some -- maybe a little pushback,
but it's timely, because people are banging into cars and doing all kinds of stuff in
there. I happen to know because I've been a victim of some of that in the past. It's
very good. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you. Other comments
or questions? Mr. Provancha? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Thank you, Mr. Walton,
for the presentation. I guess now the record will officially state that a Government official
has commented in a public domain that Commerce is sanctioning illegal parking, so that's
an issue. Just one concern about the planters. Will
the combined height of the planter plus the vegetation now create a visual impediment
for turning drivers in that they will have difficulty egressing the building and being
able to look in both directions as well as crossing the sidewalk perhaps encounter pedestrians
that are competing for the same space at the same time?
MR. CORNELL: As we move into the later design phase, including plant selection of which
will play a role, no, we will be looking at low plant material that will not obstruct
the view of drivers either entering from 14th or 15th Street that would potentially impose
an issue with not only pedestrians, but also the officers working those entries and then
also will be low enough so that vehicles who are exiting the Hoover site will have a clear
line of sight into either 14th or 15th Street. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Very good. It looks
like we first saw this project on March of '06 and so a short seven and a half years
is a fast-track project in normal D.C. and NCPC standard time.
Two other comments. One was about historic preservation. It looks like GSA has identified
14 different buildings or properties or so forth that have -- the term is area of potential
effect. Mr. Walton mentioned that an MOU had been signed, that's great to -- adverse to
address and mitigate these adverse effects and some of them are listed including an archeological
exploration of survey for the Washington Canal to look for artifacts.
It appears that that survey has not yet been done, but it is on the to-do list by the interested
parties. MS. HILL: Yeah, and that will be during the
construction phase. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: During construction?
MS. HILL: So they will be monitoring before construction starts.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: There is an incomplete list that refers to protection of historic
features and the incomplete list includes masonry, bronzework and landscaping. The concern
was while the internal elements of the secure perimeter are now all aluminum cladding and/or
black anodized aluminum and they are internally consistent within the security perimeter,
are they also consistent with any exterior masonry and/or bronzework and/or landscaping?
I couldn't really tell that as I was reading the narrative or listening to the presentation
-- MS. HILL: Yeah and --
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- whether those features have been identified and --
MS. HILL: Yeah, the -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- they are going
to be respected -- MS. HILL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- in the design. MS. HILL: And so in terms of the stone that
is being used that is already at the site, the historic stone --
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Right. MS. HILL: -- we will be working to match that.
In effect, Amy can probably answer that questions better.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Let me clarify the question. For example, is there exterior bronzework
that the black anodized aluminum security elements are respectful of or is all the bronzework
on the interior of the building and it's not of concern?
MS. WOODALL: Yes. My name is Amy Woodall. I'm the project architect with RTKL for this
project. There are some exterior US 10B finish bronze elements on the building, so that's
the statuary bronze. They are limited to light fixtures that are wall mounted on the building
and then doors and door surrounds at the exterior of the building.
And we feel like the black anodized aluminum treatment of the new security elements is
sympathetic to both the DDOT pallet of materials and the statuary bronze that is on the existing
building. And then as Suzy mentioned, we are utilizing
the Stony Creek granite which is the granite that is found at the watertable base of the
existing building. So that the new security elements that are clad in stone will actually
match the granite that is on the building. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. Great. In addition
to the bronzework and the landscaping and the masonry, what are some of the other historic
elements that are being addressed under the terms of the MOU for mitigation of adverse
impacts? MS. WOODALL: Suzy, do you want to talk more
about those? We are going to be doing some interpretative side elements. There are several
stone panels throughout the facade of the building that describe, I think, some of the
early agencies that made up the Department of Commerce, some of them are decorative in
nature in terms of replicate -- or describing like shields and agencies that were originally
part of the Department of Commerce. Others are quotes from some of the Founding
Fathers of the United States. And so there we will be hoping to incorporate technology
and have a way to, you know, do a red laser scan on some of the elements that will take
you directly to the Department of Commerce website that has inventory of some of these
interesting -- more interesting statuary elements about the exterior of the building.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: So the incorporation of these "tin plaques" and other site fixtures
that are incorporated into the perimeter security elements, that is the -- demonstrates respect
for the existing historic panels? Is that --
MS. WOODALL: Right. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Is that the connection?
MS. WOODALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. And the last
question is just about holistic planning. As we know in D.C., we have an iconic landscape
and urban planning, a tremendous amount of historic preservation.
The planning that we do has multiple impacts. Unfortunately, many times adverse impacts
to the nature of our planning. For example, when we look -- I think we haven't quite hit
that sweet spot between piecemeal and holistic. For example, if you cumulatively look at the
effects of flooding, air pollution, helydon, tree canopy, transportation, stormwater management,
perviousness or imperviousness, the pedestrian experience, public infrastructure and now
new challenges such as Bikeshare, I think we continue to do this in more, if you look
at a scale, toward piecemeal than we do holistically, because I don't think that we are adding up
and keeping score forestation, deforestation and those types of things.
So my -- I heard a comment well, we will get it right when we look at the remainder of
the Federal Triangle that was -- as opposed to a comforting comment, that was a little
bit troubling. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That's not what I said.
That's not what I said. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. Please clarify.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: What I said was that we will be able to by that time --
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Roll the tape, please. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: -- we may be able to
incorporate because we will have time to do the engineering and the testing and the certification
to use tiger traps to eliminate, we hope, still more of the bollards.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Gotcha. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That does not suggest
that we haven't gotten it right here. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Gotcha. Important
distinction. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So --
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Thank you for clarifying that.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. And I would like to address the black -- the choice of
the black finishes. It was very purposeful. And that's again a philosophical question
in whether or not a 21st Century addition to the building in the from of perimeter security
needs to announce itself or needs to try and hide.
And we made a very purposeful decision that it couldn't hide and so this was yet another
design decision made to help announce itself as a very modern addition with a modern function.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: It seems like a very reasonable compromise. You can go with the
ornate high-maintenance, low-durability bronze materials or you can go with more durable
or lower-maintenance. I think that's a good compromise. That's all the question.
MS. WOODALL: If I may as well, looking at the Federal Triangle in whole, the statuary
bronze finish is not consistent as you move east toward Department of Justice. So we think
that the black anodized aluminum is actually a good solution for -- a good holistic solution
for the Federal Triangle. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. We will look
forward to seeing that in future designs. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Ms. Tregoning?
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Just very briefly. I think it is a very admirable design and
I think that you will be gratified to know that we will probably be returning to it over
and over again as we look at other federal projects and how they handle perimeter security
and stormwater management, in particular, and say why can't it be more like this project.
So thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Sensing no further comments,
would you, Ms. Wright, like to make the motion to approve this?
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Certainly. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: So it has been moved and
seconded. All in favor of the motion say aye.
ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no? Congratulations.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Nice. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 5B is the
Old Post Office Building Redevelopment at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue and we have Ms. Hirsch.
MS. HIRSCH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. The General Services
Administration has submitted preliminary site and building plans for the redevelopment of
the old post office building. The old post office is located at 12th and Pennsylvania
in the Federal Triangle. The project site consists of the old post
office building itself and the pavilion annex, which was constructed in the early 1990s in
the courtyard of the IRS building. To provide some context for the old post office,
here you can see some historic and existing conditions of Pennsylvania Avenue. On the
top is looking east towards the Capitol and on the bottom is looking west.
The building was built between 1892 and 1899 and originally has the city post office as
well as the Post Office Department and the Post Office Postmaster General. And it was
designed in the Romanesque Revival-style. About 15 years after it opened, the city post
office moved to its new location by Union Station and as implementation of the McMillan
Plan was gearing up, it appeared that the demolition of the building was imminent.
It was of a different architectural-style than what was envisioned by the McMillan Plan
for the Federal Triangle and so, therefore, it was dubbed "older," and it's the old post
office. However, because it was a relatively new building
and the Government had invested quite a deal, a good deal of money into it, it was used
for several decades to house various federal agencies.
Demolition permits were actually issued in the 1970s of the building, but the Don't Tear
It Down campaign as well as the efforts of Nancy Hanks and others were influential in
developing proposals for its adaptive reuse. In the early 1980s, the building underwent
a major rehabilitation and opened as a mixed use office and retail establishment. It was
during this period that the Congress bells were installed in the tower and that an elevator
was installed on the interior in order for visitors to be able to visit the top of the
tower. In here you can see some additional views
of the site today. The lower left is a view as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station,
the existing C Street Plaza and the 11th Street Plaza.
The building is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is a contributing element
to the Pennsylvania Avenue national historic site.
So to provide some background on the project. The Old Post Office Redevelopment Act was
passed by Congress in 2008. In March of 2011, GSA issued a request for proposals. And in
February of 2012 selected the Trump organization as the preferred selected developer.
Since selecting Trump, GSA has been working to negotiate a long-term ground lease with
Trump as well as comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act. GSA issued a finding of no significant impact
in May of this year and also executed a programmatic agreement to address ongoing consultation
under Section 106 for the project as it moves forward.
In January of 2013, this Commission provided comments regarding the proposed zoning of
the site noting that after the redevelopment, the property would remain federal -- under
federal jurisdiction and, therefore, subject to NCPC in lieu of zoning authority.
So here you can see the proposed site plan for the project. Through the redevelopment,
the OPO will be converted from a mix of office and retail to a luxury hotel and conference
center. Retail establishments inside the building will include fine dining, a spa as well as
museum spaces. The clock tower will continue to be operated and open to the public. It
will be operated by the National Park Service through an agreement with GSA.
Two public plazas will be included in the project, one to the north along Pennsylvania
Avenue and also one to the south along the former C Street right-of-way. In addition,
the project proposes a driveway along the former 11th Street right-of-way to provide
vehicular access to the site for taxis and limos as well as to provide access to valet
parking which will be in the basement for the annex.
So just to briefly summarize what the exterior modifications that will be made to the property
are, as I mentioned, the redevelopment of the Pennsylvania Avenue Plaza in front of
the building, the 11th Street driveway, the C Street Plaza to the south, the 10th Street
entrance through the IRS Arcade will be open for special events and then skylights will
be added to the roof on the rear of the property as well as some signage along 12th Street.
And I'll just briefly go into a little more detail on each one of these. The main pedestrian
point of entry for the hotel will be the Pennsylvania Avenue side where this plaza will be located.
Temporary non-fixed seating will be added to the front of the building. However, no
changes are proposed for either the Benjamin Franklin statute or the special artwork pavers
in the sidewalk. New signage will be installed in the center
arch of the building as well as some new awnings for the retail establishments in the hotel.
Cafes on the plaza will activate Pennsylvania Avenue, which will achieve a goal of the Pennsylvania
Avenue Plan from the 1970s and this is also consistent with policies in the Comprehensive
Plan as well as the Monumental Core Framework Plan.
Public access in general to the building will be improved as existing planners that are
located in front of the building on Pennsylvania Avenue will be removed as well as security
screening that is on the interior. So here you can see some views of the proposed
driveway and the former 11th Street driveway. This will serve as a pick-up and drop-off
point for taxis and other vehicles coming to the hotel and it will also provide access
to the valet garage that will be in the basement of the annex.
There will be up to 150 parking spaces in the annex. You can also see here the renderings
of the proposed signage that will be placed in the driveway for the hotel. With the introduction
of the driveway, the annex will also be renovated, as this will become the hotel's conference
center and grand ballroom. New steel and glass canopies are proposed
for both the 11th Street entrance to the old post office as well as the main entrance to
the ballroom that you see here. The renovation of the annex also, I should note, includes
a new green roof for stormwater management and control and then a new exterior is also
proposed for the annex. Two treatments have been proposed. One is
stone that you see here on the right and the other is glass. This is an additional view
looking south from Pennsylvania Avenue. You can see the driveway, the sign and then the
renovated annex. And this is the option with glass.
I just wanted to note that when CFA reviewed this a few months ago, they expressed a strong
preference for the glass wall cladding and GSA is in the process of modifying the design
in response to those comments. So with respect to the 11th Street driveway,
staff focused on the history of the site, and in this photo from 1900 on the left you
can see the original block configuration that OPO originally sat on with 11th Street to
the east. And then the photo on the right, you can see that up until the late 1970s early
1980s, 11th Street was open and functioning as a street.
11th Street was formerly closed in the 1920s with the impending implementation of the McMillan
Plan for the Federal Triangle, but it wasn't until the rehabilitation project in the early
1980s and some subsequent site improvements after 1981 when the street was actually physically
closed. So staff's position is that the proposed driveway
will reestablish the four-leg intersection that was historically present as well as the
historic block configuration from the L'Enfant Plan. Though there will be some disruption
to the pedestrian circulation with the driveway, there will be a marked crosswalk and signalization
and this will be clearly marked to minimize any conflicts.
In addition, GSA and Trump will be continuing to work with the District Department of Transportation
on the final design of the driveway including the signalization and any other needed improvements.
So here you can see the proposed traffic movement for the site. And staff wanted to quickly
review through the EA and Section 106 process the other options that were evaluated for
vehicular entrance and traffic patterns for the site and ultimately, why 11th Street was
chosen as the preferred option. So a lay-by lane was considered for Pennsylvania
Avenue, but this would have required additional curb cuts on Pennsylvania Avenue and it also
probably would have required some kind of semi-circular driveway. And this was not desirable
by any of the consulting parties. A lay-by lane was also considered for 12th
Street. However, this would have impacted traffic, the traffic flow along 12th Street
and, therefore, the District DDOT was not very supportive of that option. Consideration
was given to using the C Street former right-of-way in the rear of the property, however, but
this would have eliminated -- you wouldn't have been able to construct the public plaza
that is proposed and it would have also increased the traffic along 12th Street.
Also using C Street would have probably drawn activity off of Pennsylvania Avenue and this
was not seen as a desirable condition. Also, just to note, the existing service drive off
of 12th Street on the C Street right here provides entrance to the loading dock and
that will continue to be used to service the hotel.
Finally, GSA did consider an option of no on-site parking, so just to have valets that
would take the cars off-site. However, that would have generated a lot of traffic coming
to and from the site and also there would have been traffic impacts because there is
no viable option really to install a lay-by lane around the site.
So based on these traffic considerations as well as the historic preservation benefits
of reestablishing the four-leg intersection and the block pattern, staff is supportive
of the driveway in this location. So to facilitate the driveway as well as the
public plaza improvements along Pennsylvania Avenue, NPS will be transferring jurisdiction
of a portion of the sidewalk. This transfer will be subject to the Commission's review
and so, therefore, is part of our recommendation. Staff is recommending that prior to or with
the final plans for the project, that the transfer of jurisdiction and any related covenants
be submitted with the project. On the south side of the building, C Street
will serve as the primary entrance from visitors coming from the National Mall and the Federal
Triangle Metro Station. And here again, a public plaza will be installed. Temporary
furniture will be placed in the plaza and adjusted seasonally.
In addition, the bikeshed that you see here on the lower left, this is non-original, so
the building will be removed and the historic shed roof will be restored.
Now, here you can see some images of what the public plaza will look like as well as
the restoration of the shed roof that I was just speaking about.
So the removal of the bikeshed, the restoration of the historic shed roof and the activation
of the plaza are again consistent with policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the Framework
Plan and this will enhance the public realm and improve the pedestrian experience.
Staff notes that the signage proposed for this corner at 12th and C Street in this location
down here does appear to be fairly large in scale and due to its configuration, may be
blocking some views and therefore, we are recommending that as the design is finalized,
GSA and the developer continue to work with all stakeholders to make sure that the signage
is scaled appropriately for the setting of the building.
The original design of the annex is featured in east/west connection from 10th Street through
the IRS Building Arcade. However, since the closing of the annex, this entrance has been
locked. With the redevelopment project, this entrance will be open during special events
as an alternative to the entrance off of the 11th Street driveway.
And to mark when this entrance is open, temporary signage will be placed by the building arcade.
As I mentioned, the redevelopment also includes a proposal to install skylights in the roof
off of C Street in the southern portion of the roof off of 11th Street. These historic
photos indicate that at one time there were windows in this location, but they have been
subsequently covered over in different rehabilitation projects.
So the redevelopment project proposes to install skylights in the back portion of the building
in order to provide additional light into the guest rooms that will be located on the
top floor of the hotel. So overall, staff supportive of the redevelopment
project as it will rehabilitate a nationally-significant historic resource while establishing a premier
hotel and destination along Pennsylvania Avenue with a mix of uses. The two public plazas
will enhance the public realm and improve the pedestrian experience of Pennsylvania
Avenue and the Federal Triangle. And so with that, it's the Commission's recommendation
-- or the Executive Director's recommendation to the Commission is to approve the preliminary
site and building plans for the Old Post Office Redevelopment; to adopt GSA's finding of no
significant impact for the OPO Redevelopment Environmental Assessment; and to request that
GSA and the preferred selected developer continue to refine the designs for signage throughout
the site; and to ensure that signage and canopies are appropriately scaled and oriented to the
setting of the Old Post Office; and finally requires that the transfer of jurisdiction
to facilitate the introduction of a driveway in the former 11th Street right-of-way and
to accommodate outdoor seating in front of the building, including the conditions for
that transfer be submitted with or prior to the submission of -- for final approval.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Ms. Hirsch. Mr. May?
COMMISSIONER MAY: I just have one question about the loading dock actually. I assume
that that is a frontend-in/frontend-out and there is room to turn around inside the building
or something like that. Is that how it works? MS. HIRSCH: Right. So can I have the prism
back? The trucks mentioned, they will pull in here.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Pull in, right. MS. HIRSCH: And then they back out. They back
this way in and then they come out this way. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. And it's all -- I
mean, that whole thing that's called loading dock is enclosed?
MS. HIRSCH: Yes. Well, enclosed? COMMISSIONER MAY: There is a roof over it?
MS. HIRSCH: No, there won't be a roof over it.
COMMISSIONER MAY: It's just a yard? MS. HIRSCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WHITE: But you won't see it from the street.
COMMISSIONER MAY: No. MS. HIRSCH: It's very difficult to see.
COMMISSIONER MAY: No, but you will be able to see it from the rooms and things like that.
MS. HIRSCH: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER MAY: So I was just curious about
what it was, because it wasn't clear from the drawing. And I assume that they are doing
whatever they need. It's 17 feet wide. It's not quite two-way traffic for trucks, so I
assume that they are doing what they need to to make sure that you don't have trucks
coming together and having to back out one way or another. It's all about backing trucks
in and out, but we want to avoid, so that's all I wanted to comment on.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Could I make a general comment first?
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Please. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So as Jennifer was careful
to point out, we are -- since this submission was put in, we have made considerable advances
in design development, so you are seeing an old one. That's not necessarily germane to
the driveway plan, but just overall. And specifically with the annex design, we
are -- and we will be checking in with the design team at 50 percent and 65 percent.
A little bit unusual because of the timing of the next submission, which we hope will
be in September. And one word on the signage. This has been
the subject of much debate. So what we have elected to do is wait, and to your point earlier,
Bradley, about a holistic look, there is a lot going on on the site and a lot that the
signage has to do and several different audiences and users.
So we are -- the views that you have seen are indicators. We also see the signage as
a very important part of the architectural design of the building and demarcations of
its various identities. So we are looking at it all at once.
So it has been -- people have gotten really worked up over this subject and we just want
everyone to just recognize we are working on it as a whole package and it will-- you
will see it in toto as part of the final submission. And then the last is the 11th Street right-of-way
and the transfer is -- we are actively engaged with the Park Service and working diligently
to see that that is done on time, as in before September we hope. And that's all I have to
say about that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha?
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Appreciate your comments about the signage. That was of course one
of the things that we wanted to ask about. It looks very -- for a "Trump" property, it
is very low-key and subdued and less commercial than we had thought.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: I'm so not touching that. You know that.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: So I know that was not accidental. An example, some of the signage
at the street level, I think, is exactly the right message.
Our question was about handicapped access. It appeared that there was a prominent ramp
on the south side on the plaza, but couldn't see handicapped access. Is it street level
on the 11th Street and 12th Street sides? MS. HIRSCH: There is one right here on 11th
Street. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. And what about
Pennsylvania Avenue? It appears that the street furniture there constricts the entrance a
little bit. Is there a handicap access on that side of the building?
MS. HIRSCH: There is no handicap access on that side of the building now.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: No requirement to --
MS. HIRSCH: At this point. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- add that to that?
was not -- MS. HIRSCH: -- address your --
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- the case. MS. HIRSCH: -- constituency here? Hany is
from the project architect. I don't think there is the possibility on Pennsylvania Avenue.
MR. HASSAN: Good afternoon. My name is Hany Hassan. I'm the architect principal with Beyer
Blinder Belle responsible for this project. First, I appreciate the positive comments
that were made earlier. With respect to the importance and the sensitivity of this building
and the historic and architectural character of it, particularly on Pennsylvania Avenue
where there is multiple sets of steps that rises up to the main level, we felt that any
introduction to ramps or anything of this sort will impact the architectural character
and the historic nature of this building and the importance of Pennsylvania Avenue.
So we elected to maintain the access ramp, which is existing today to the lower level
on the 11th Street. So to be accessible, we felt that this is sufficient to enter the
building at that level. Thank you. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Help us again to understand
better the signalization and the new crosswalks. Where are they located on the plan?
MS. HIRSCH: Here is the location of the new crosswalk.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Yes. MS. HIRSCH: We don't have the details yet
of the signalization. That is still to be developed. This is only -- you have to remember,
this is preliminary review. The signalization will come in subsequent review cycles. We
don't have -- they will be working with the District Department of Transportation on that.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: All right. That's all the questions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Okay. Anyone else? Ms. White? COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sorry, can I ask a further
question of the architect with respect to the handicap ramps? On the 11th Street side,
the handicap ramp that comes into the building, what are they entering into inside the building?
Does it go into the main lobby, so they get the same experience as if they were coming
in on Pennsylvania? I'm just trying to understand what their experience is like entering the
building. MR. HASSAN: They enter at the lower level,
what we consider the lower level. It's sort of equivalent to first floor. There is a major
stair that goes up to the main level, which is also accessible to that level and it's
all accessible to elevators throughout the building on both sides, two banks of elevators
on the east and west. COMMISSIONER WHITE: And is it more of a public
entrance or is it sort of a backstage entrance? MR. HASSAN: No. It's a --
COMMISSIONER WHITE: Okay. So it will be a grand --
MR. HASSAN: Absolutely. It's -- COMMISSIONER WHITE: Okay.
MR. HASSAN: -- a public entrance. And it is interesting when you go to the site to 11th
Street that slide ramp, I mean, refer to it as a ramp. It's a very slight incline and
it's very gracious and very approachable. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you.
MR. HASSAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Miller?
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to comment that this is a very
exciting project that will do a lot to activate Pennsylvania Avenue and the south side of
Pennsylvania Avenue, in particular. One of the activities that currently though
is that the project is -- that is at the site is, which unfortunately has to be eliminated,
the bike tour business, which gets a lot of business. But I understand why it is -- why
that has to happen. But is there any, at this stage, discussion
on where in the C Street Plaza or elsewhere there would be bike racks or Capital Bikeshare
facility or is it too preliminary at this point?
MS. HIRSCH: It's still very preliminary, but I know that DDOT is working with GSA and Trump
in trying to identify where the bike racks will be adjacent to the site.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much, Ms.
Hirsch. The EDR is before you. Is there a motion on the EDR?
PARTICIPANT: So moved. PARTICIPANT: Motion.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: It has been moved and seconded that the EDR be passed as presented.
All in favor of the motion say aye. ALL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no? It has passed and as noted, this is preliminary. We still
have a ways to go and we look forward to more work on this project.
Item 5C is the Phase 2 of the South Campus, Centrum, at the Intelligence Community Campus
in Bethesda. We have Mr. Dettman. Welcome back.
MR. DETTMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: I will also note that we
have two speakers signed up representing organizations, so they will be afforded five minutes each,
but, Mr. Dettman, you're on. MR. DETTMAN: Thank you. And good afternoon.
Staff will be presenting today the final second building plans for, as the Chairman indicated,
the Intelligence Community Campus-Bethesda, South Campus, Centrum Project.
You will recall that the Commission reviewed and approved the preliminary second building
plans back in May of this year. You know full well by now that the 30-acre campus is located
in Bethesda, Maryland. It is, approximately, three-quarters of a mile from the District
line. It's a quarter mile east of the Potomac River, which is located to the west.
Between the site and the Potomac River is National Park Service land consisting of fairly
steeply-sloping land going down to MacArthur Boulevard, the Clara Barton Parkway and the
C & O Canal National Historic Park. Here is another aerial photo looking west
towards the Potomac River with a diagram down in the lower left where you can see the, you
know, vertical differential between the site and the Potomac River, which is, approximately,
as I said it was, a quarter mile. And over that quarter mile distance about a drop of
about 150 vertical feet. So on the west is the Park Service land. On
the north is a local park as well as a private school. And in the -- on the east across Sangamore
Road is a fairly large commercial retail plaza. And then surrounding the area is primarily
moderate-density residential consisting of the majority of single-family detached homes
with some multi-family residential dispersed throughout to the east.
You know that the ICC-B is being redeveloped for purposes of serving the Intelligence Community
and it is currently guided by a master plan that was approved by the Commission in 2012.
It splits the campus into two redevelopment halves, the North Campus Improvements and
the South Campus Improvements. The North Campus Improvements are currently
under construction and the South Campus is currently getting underway with this first
project with the Centrum Project. The Centrum Project is a critical piece to the transformation
of the South Campus because it is intended to kind of serve as the heart of the South
Campus in terms of the functional circulation and tying together these disparate poorly
connected buildings as well as the mechanical core of the whole South Campus through shared
mechanical systems. So here we are looking at the site plan of
the Centrum Building Project which is outlined in red. It's about 130,000 square foot limits
of disturbance, which is currently about 80 percent impervious. The Centrum Building itself
has a footprint of about 41,000 square feet and it will be spaced out along four levels,
including a basement totalling about 225,000 square feet.
Again, it's going to serve as the main circulation plan for the entire South Campus and consistent
office space for about 350 employees. In terms of the building amenities, it does
contain the design -- the final design contains, approximately, a 3,600 square foot green roof,
which is located along the west side of the building above the loading dock. It has a
20,000 gallon cistern for the capture of rain water from the main Centrum building roof,
which is located at the basement of the building. In terms of site improvements, four plazas
are being proposed. There is a main entry plaza that connects the visitor control facility
to the main entrance on the north side of the Centrum. There is a ceremonial entry plaza
on the south side of the Centrum which will tie into the existing historic landscape on
the east side of Erskine Hall. There is an assembly court on the west side,
which can be used for -- by the employees during lunchtime or whatever or graduation
ceremonies to -- that is tied in with the educational component of the intended program.
And then there was a wellness garden, a secured wellness garden on the north side of Roberdeau,
which I'll discuss in a moment. Finally, there are some micro-bioretention
areas for the handling of stormwater located on the east side of the Centrum.
Here is looking at a rendering of the Centrum. You can start to take a look at the height,
massing and bulk of the building. The exterior of the Centrum is still intended to be clad
in three different types of materials. There is a locally-quarried slate material for the
base. There is a combination of curtain -- glass curtain wall as well as an aluminum panel
system that has windows integrated in with it.
The height of the Centrum is about 60 feet above-grade or 72 feet to the height of the
penthouse, which is still about 20 feet below the highest building on the site, which is
Erskine Hall down on the south end. And so what -- this is the -- what I'll do
is focus now quickly on the applicant's response to the Commission's preliminary report, which
again was in May 2013. At that time, the Commission approved the
preliminary report and made a series of requests for the applicant to go back and more fully
analyze some particular site and building plan modifications, including looking at refining
the height and massing setbacks of the penthouses, looking at the surface area and the depth
of the green roof, considering the expansion and the capacity of the cistern, expansion
of the micro-bioretention areas, to eliminate the wellness garden and especially the anti-climb
fence that secured that area and then finally to look at the use of permeable pavements
throughout all pedestrian pathways, courtyards and plazas.
The Commission also requested a series of information which the applicant has provided
to staff in the final submission. The first one was responses to the Commission's recommended
modifications and updated stormwater management plan consisting of updated calculations pertaining
to federal and state stormwater requirement compliance, responses to the Maryland -- Montgomery
County Planning Board review which we have received and was provided to you today as
well as the applicant's response to those comments.
And finally, a campus-wide Stormwater Management Plan which the Commission wanted in order
to review individual site and building plans. Finally, the Commission encouraged the applicant
to finalize the Memorandum of Understanding being worked on between Defense Intelligence
Agency and the National Park Service to address historic off-site sedimentation erosion damage
to Park Service land during the previous occupancy of the site.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Just a quick question. It has been the case and it continues to be the
case that the stormwater management continues to not just meet, but exceed requirements.
MR. DETTMAN: That's correct. I'll show you some numbers. Actually, I'll show you the
numbers from the preliminary and then I'll show you how those numbers actually change
as a result of some reductions in impervious surface.
With regard to analyzing the height, mass and setbacks of the penthouses, the applicant
took a close look at that and was able to make some changes, which reduces the overall
massing of the penthouse structures and the number.
The applicant was able to eliminate a proposed stair tower on the north wing of the Centrum
and replace that with just a roof access hatch that will sit below the building parapet wall.
They also looked at the two main penthouse structures and were able to shrink the footprint
a bit in order to again reduce the overall massing of those structures.
With regard to the setbacks because of the narrowness of the Centrum spine and the interior
circulation, the north/south circulation, essentially, the building core or the vertical
circulation through the building has to either reside on one side or the other that made
circulations fine. And so it does, it remains along the west side of the building up against
these exterior walls. But again, their height is only about 12 feet
high and given the vertical separation and the horizontal distance to the Potomac River
and the National Park Service land, adverse views of those penthouse structures were not
intended at preliminary. They are not intended now.
With regard to looking at the design and the retention capacity of the green roof, the
applicant continues to propose a 3,600 square foot green roof over the loading dock. They
did look at whether or not a vertical expansion in order to increase its storage capacity
was possible because of cost constraints and the structural constraints of the roof of
the loading dock, that was not feasible. In addition for the same reasons, cost and
the structural capacity of the Centrum roof and project constraints, the applicant is
not able to expand the green roof over to the main building roof. However, as I noted,
the 20,000 gallon cistern in the basement of the Centrum is designed to capture water
from the main roof and use it in the mechanical systems.
With regard to the cistern remains 20,000 gallons. The applicant did contemplate a larger
greywater system, but, however, because of the space constraints inside the basement
level, which you see here, the basement level is not only just building systems, there is
some tenant -- there is some program space down there. There are some other buildings
to support. So outlined in red is essentially the Central Mechanical Plant, which has been
dedicated -- that space has been dedicated for the utility areas of the building.
And again, the Central Utility Plant is going to serve all of the buildings throughout the
entire South Campus, so space is fairly constrained. And so they have room for a 20,000 gallon
cistern. In addition, they do have a projected greywater
demand in order to feed the cooling towers and the other mechanical needs for the building
and 20,000 gallons is that right capacity. Anything in excess is, essentially, just capturing
water for the sake of capturing water and eventually would make it into off-site or
into a municipal stormwater system anyway. Another consideration was the life cycle cost
and the extended payback period of doing a larger greywater system or a larger cistern.
The applicant has indicated though that it does intend to continue to evaluate the opportunity
for additional cisterns or and even green roofs on the remainder of the South Campus
build-out. Looking at the wellness garden and the anti-climb
fence, the applicant did agree with the Commission on its elimination and instead looking at
incorporating that type of programmatic element with -- throughout the entire landscape of
the South Campus. And so the wellness garden and the anti-climb
fence has been removed. The wellness garden -- the removal of the wellness garden equates
to, approximately, a reduction of about 5,800 square feet of impervious surface. And it
turns that area into more porous or just a garden-type area.
On the North Plaza, the plaza area has been reduced by about 3,400 square feet. They took
a close look at that and were able to make those adjustments. And so again, a further
reduction in the amount of impervious surface. As well as down at the ceremonial entry court,
the applicant reduced the amount of paving there by about 5,300 square feet.
So in total, there is about another reduction of about 14,500 square feet of impervious
surface. In addition to that, the applicant intends on any kind of paving that they do
have is going to be an impervious paver with porous sand-swept joints in between the pavers,
so that will help with some additional infiltration. Regarding stormwater management, the project
continues to not only meet, but exceed the state and federal regulations. Under the MDE
Regulations, this is considered a redevelopment project and the applicant is exceeding the
requirements through accommodation of impervious surface reduction and environmental site design.
At preliminary, the proposal was looking at about a 12 percent reduction in impervious
surface and this doesn't include the additional 14,500 square feet of impervious surface reduction
that they identify between preliminary and final.
They are relying upon the green roof and the micro-bioretention for achieving or exceeding
its required retention bond. So you can see at the bottom of this graph here, the amount
that they are required, given the limits of disturbance of this project, they are required
to store -- at the preliminary level they are required to store about 3,000 cubic feet
of water. And they are retaining about 4,500 cubic feet
of water. And with that additional reduction of impervious surface, it lowers the amount
that they have to retain. And so the amount that they exceed these requirements is even
greater. And the same goes for the federal requirements
under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act or EISA 2007, which under
those regulations they are required to retain the 95th percentile rainfall event. Using
a complex hydrologic model called the TR-55 method, it turns out that they are required
under the federal regulations to hold onto about 7,000 cubic feet of water.
And so when you throw in the 20,000 gallon cistern and factor in the additional reductions
in impervious surface, they are holding on to about 7,200 cubic feet of water, so again
they are exceeding the federal requirements. A couple other outstanding stormwater-related
issues. I'll give you an update on the Memorandum of Intent which is now being called -- it
was an MOU at the preliminary stage. The applicant continues to make progress and
is very, very close to finalizing this agreement with the National Park Service. A final draft
was provided by DIA to the National Park Service on June 20th and is currently undergoing review
by the Park Service. Applicant informed staff yesterday that the affected National Park
Service units, being the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Clara Barton Parkway,
have reviewed the language of the final draft and are happy with it. It has been forwarded
to the solicitor's office and the regional office of the Park Service and it is being
reviewed at that level right now. I mentioned that the applicant did provide
staff with a campus-wide Stormwater Management Plan which addresses state and federal stormwater
compliance and that it calculates out how much they need to retain at the state and
federal level on the entire campus. It identifies sustainable Stormwater Best
Management Practices not only just for the remainder of the South Campus, it does go
up to the North Campus and identifies some areas along the intended -- the realigned
access road. And that the applicant intends to further develop this concept. It is right
now at about the 15 percent level. It identifies some opportunities and it looks at what can
be -- what is possible. They intend on further developing this concept
to about a 35 percent level. The additional details will come at the site-specific level
when they get into further design of the landscape and of the other tasks under this redevelopment
scenario. And then finally, between preliminary and
final, the applicant did present to the Maryland County -- Montgomery County Planning Board.
The Planning Board did provide comments which were provided to you. And the applicant also
provided responses to those comments. In general, the Planning Board agreed with
the Commission's preliminary report and commended the applicant on its continued efforts to
resolve issues with the community, especially with regard to stormwater, it's overall South
Campus design concept and the preparation of a campus stormwater -- campus-wide Stormwater
Management Plan. It did make a few recommendations in regard
to the pattern that -- the final patterning of the Centrum facade. As you recall, the
orange aluminum paneling was initially designed according to kind of a pattern of Birch trees,
which are not native to this area. The Planning Board and the MNCPPC staff wanted
to see the patterning to more reflect the native tree pattern and the applicant has
indicated in its response that it will do that in final.
They wanted to make sure to reduce the visibility of the mechanical penthouses which I have
described that they have, begin developing the overall campus landscape as early as possible,
staff, MNCPPC staff has had some early discussions with the applicant and we are going to start
consulting on the site-wide landscape treatments very, very soon.
They wanted to continue engaging with the National Park Service, which they are, design
the curtain wall to reduce glare and visibility. They will do that. And I won't go through
all of them. The green roof and the cistern capacity, I have already touched upon and
the permeable pavements. And finally to add the South Campus architectural
details in the North Campus which the applicant has indicated to not only this Commission,
but the Maryland -- Montgomery County Planning Board that they will.
And so with that, it is the Executive Director's recommendation that the Commission approve
the final second building plans for the ICC-B Phase 2 Centrum Project, to note that the
applicant continues to work with interested and affected federal and state agencies, interested
community stakeholders, to address off-site stormwater erosion and sedimentation damage
caused by the previous occupancy of the site and to note that the DIA and NPS are finalizing
an MOI to address preexisting off-site erosion issues on adjacent Park Service property.
And with that, that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Dettman. Before we go to our two public commenters, are there
any burning questions that you want to get out right now? If not, we can hold them. I
don't know if there is anything pressing. Let's go to public comment. And we have two
speakers who have five minutes each. The first is Dr. Zeizel with the Community Stormwater
Committee. Welcome back.
DR. ZEIZEL: Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you again. Just to refresh
some of your memories, I do have a background in 30 years with HUD and FEMA in water resource
planning and management. And for the Planning Commission, I actually spent five years working
with the Northeastern Illinois Metropolitan Area Planning Commission in floodwater resources
planning and management. I and 12 others have been working with the
group through the Stormwater Management Committee to work with the ICC-B staff and your staff.
And we have seen quite a bit of beneficial progress from this cooperation.
Most of this progress, however, has been planning to repair the damage that has been done to
the Park Service land, the C & O Canal and the Potomac Watershed. But now we see the
planning really moving toward the prevention side of future damages and future losses.
And I think here it requires in this approach that we use more non-structural type of practices
to retain, to infiltrate and to use more biotreatment on site. The use of these stormwater, some
people call them new, but they have been around for maybe 20 years, are required by federal,
state and local laws. And they are -- and this, I think, requires more cooperation between
everyone involved, because it is a new and somewhat complex approach.
The water -- the Stormwater Management Group/Committee does support fully the -- your approval of
the Centrum site. We think it is a significant step toward improvement of not only the site
itself, but the surrounding community. From a stormwater management perspective,
the planned use of the environmental site design techniques in this small area is quite
commendable. But the problem that we are beginning to see is that the knowledge and so forth
that was demonstrated in this planning and application really needs to be better applied,
if you will, to the broader site itself. As we move towards prevention, the stormwater
management techniques, these are more -- even more important. Our review of the Stormwater
Management Concept Plan, which has been submitted to you, shows that the evaluation of the potential
use of the environmental site design methods are, in general, somewhat inadequate at this
point. I think the point that Shane made and I think
appropriate we just found out is a 15 percent plan. It is a concept plan and will be improved
as we move forward. But at this point, there is not really -- we
don't really see a serious effort to fully evaluate the potential for infiltration of
water and particularly to do this, you have to have soil borings. And the first cut of
the concept plan does not even address the need and almost requirement for soil borings
to determine the infiltration areas. Maryland law and regulations require, and
I'll quote from here, "all reasonable opportunities for using environmental site design planning
techniques and treatment practices be exhausted before a structural press management practice
is implemented." All -- the emphasis there is not only to quantitatively
reduce the outflow, saving money, but also to do and retain most of the water on-site
and treat it on-site. And our -- so we urge that your NCPC staff
review the concept plan very closely to see that it really fully meets the intent and
the -- really the law of the state and local governments.
Again, the emphasis there is on the non-structural approach. The core sort of traditionally uses
structural approaches. If you use a non-structural, you do reduce cost and are more efficient.
I think we also have to mention something toward this community cooperation aspect of
the plan. Your Commission has noted and it commended the groups for working with the
local communities and to a large extent this is true. Cooperation has resulted in major
progress, I think. However, there is some aspects of cooperation always that could be
improved. And we find in working with the ICC-B staff
that we are given reports when they are final. We are not substantially involved with the
design of reports. We are not substantially given the opportunity to comment on conduct
of the -- of a lot of the work. And we see a fait accompli when we are given the reports
with limited time to comment. So basically, our -- also one of the problems
that is -- well, here is an example. For example, in your EDR report, the reports tend to say
how great this community cooperation is. They cite 16 document availability reports, but
all these things are usually just giving us the opportunity to review a report. It is
not giving any opportunity to really have a substantive input with ICC-B management.
So there -- it is not really true cooperation. In my work over the years with HUD and with
FEMA, I have managed many, many multi-million dollar projects where they substantially involve
the stakeholders. I have -- we have -- I can speak professionally
that this is absolutely necessary, I think, for better conduct of these kinds of research
and this kind of work and that the final product is always improved. There is a substantial
input by the stakeholders. Now sometimes as we all know, it is very,
very contentious and, in fact, quite better at times. But, in fact, it is usually to provide
a better product. So in this case -- now, we have seen very
recently, I would say -- CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Wrap-up, please.
DR. ZEIZEL: -- improvement. Okay. So basically, our -- we request the Commission staff direct
their staff -- we have seen this lessening almost at a drop the cancellation of talk
with your staff on this for some reason, very recent. We request that your Commission direct
your own staff to restore improved communication with our Stormwater Management Committee and
encourage the ICC-B staff to increase and improve their interaction with the Committee
Stormwater Management Committee. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Dr. Zeizel very
much. Thank you. The second and last is David Berg with the
Brookmont Civic League. Welcome back.
MR. BERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. I appreciate the opportunity
to testify in favor of the Centrum project and to offer some additional comments.
This project will lead the way for the ICC-B to become an attractive and functional addition
to our corner in the D.C. area. The Centrum's planned stormwater facilities are by far the
best to date at the overall ICC-B site. And I could elaborate on that, if you would like,
but that's very important as it's the first time we are seeing ESD used on a site.
Further, Admiral Manzelmann repeatedly assured the community that no trees will be cut down
during this project. However, the EDR failed to mention this commitment. I ask that NCPC
ascertain whether this is still DIA's intention. We are concerned about the conceptual campus-wide
Stormwater Management Plan. I want to reiterate Art's comments about that and ask that NCPC
take a very close look at it. The EDR notes on page 3, but without comment,
that NCPC received this "plan showing ESD opportunities and potential capacities in
the North and South Campuses and documentation prepared in accordance with EPA's guidance
addressing compliance with EISA." Several members of the committee-- community
Stormwater Committee read this document and we questioned the characterization in the
EDR. The plan is early in its development and it is hardly complete. We will provide
detailed comments to the team on what we have seen and engage with the ICC-B Team as the
plan evolves. We encourage NCPC to examine the plan closely
before you accept it. I want to note that initial discussions with the ICC-B staff have
been informative and positive. Those are very recent conversations.
So some early concerns. MDE and EISA require project sponsors to restore predevelopment
conditions and/or use ESD to the MEP, maximum extent practicable. The focus in this plan,
however, appears to be compliance with these requirements at the lowest possible cost regardless
of the opportunities for ESD, regardless of predevelopment conditions and literally without
impacts on communities to the south of the site.
In these times of sequester, cost efficiency is essential. However, the plan proposes to
increase the area of the site discharging to the county storm sewer by 150 percent from
13 percent to 30 percent reducing stormwater discharges to the mid-site stream and saving
money by scrimping on ESD. All it says without increasing storm flows.
While this may be possible, we can't see its realization in the conceptual plan, not yet
anyway. It is worrisome that the plan failed to describe and discuss the capacity of the
county storm sewer system and it does not even propose a capacity study.
We requested a capacity study nearly two years ago. One should have been done more than a
decade ago when they first started discharging to the county storm sewer system, but we have
not seen one. Without such a plan, the overall plan for stormwater on this site has no foundation
in reality. Importantly, the plan fails to mention where
overflows will go when larger storms exceed the systems on-campus capacity. The answer
is overflow -- it appears to be that overflows leaving the site will go to the nearest inlet
of the storm sewer just down the street. What will happen to the community then?
Previous site documents concluded that little active erosion exists in the mid-site stream.
That makes sense as the core years ago shifted stormwater from the mid-site stream to the
north stream causing damage. The ICC-B Team did decline our suggestion to restore some
of these flows to the mid-site stream to protect the north stream, but now it proposes to reduce
the flows there even further. The plan does not state what is to be gained
other than perhaps a lower cost Stormwater Management Plan from more shifts of stormwater,
the risks to the community are clear. However strangely, the EDR takes an optimistic, if
an accurate, view of the plan saying that the project team will explore this, that and
the other even though the plan itself is clear and stating the opposite.
For example, there will be no green roof on Erskine Hall. This plan says that unfavorable
cost benefit. There will be no cistern added in Erskine Hall, the reason unfavorable cost
benefit. More micro-bioretention areas for the Centrum Project area, but they won't fit
and they are not in the Centrum Stormwater Plan.
And contrary to the EDR, the plan does not express intent to add any ESD in the North
Campus. The EDR comments favorably on page 19 about the planned use in the Centrum Project
of ESD strategies and notes the added benefits of these strategies.
We agree the campus-wide plan, however, fails so far to anticipate using ESD strategies
to the maximum extent practicable as required. So the Centrum Project is going to use ESD
on its three acres, but the entire campus is close to 30. No ESD is approved for the
12 plus acre North Campus and little ESD is proposed outside the Centrum Project footprint
on the South Campus. With no intentions in the conceptual plan
to do infiltration studies on most of the ICC-B site, the plan simply cannot conclude
that the MEP requirement is going to be met. These points should adequately illustrate
the basis. Just to conclude, again, I reiterate our community
support for the Centrum Project. It is really -- it looks good and we are optimistic. We
urge NCPC to pay very close attention to the site-wide Stormwater Conceptual Plan. So three
very specific requests: (1) That DIA reaffirm that no trees will be
lost to the Centrum Project. (2) Encourage the project team to use ESD
to the MEP as required. (3) Examine closely the consensual -- conceptual
campus-wide plan before you approve it. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much. We will return the discussion to the Commission. Questions
or comments from Commission Members on the EDR?
Mr. Hart? COMMISSIONER HART: In the past, I have voiced
a number of concerns about stormwater management, forest conservation and I think we have moved
in the right direction as we move forward with this campus plan. I would reiterate my
interest in seeing campus-wide addressing both of those issues.
And so as we move forward, I would like to see in the landscape plan addressing forest
conservation as well as the last speaker was pointing out, campus-wide treatment for stormwater
management that uses environmental site design. But I think this is moving in the right direction
overall. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. May?
COMMISSIONER MAY: Thank you. I would agree with Commissioner Hart with regard to the
future development plan, I mean, and also with the progress that has been made on the
plan already. I think it has come a long way and the projects are improved, in the project
review stage as a result, but further use of environmental site design is certainly
well worth the additional effort in future stages of the development program.
I do want to thank the -- all the neighbors, Dr. Zeizel and Mr. Berg, especially, for their
diligence in making sure that the project is executed in the best possible way and that
they watch closely what is -- what the applicant is doing with the project.
And I am actually interested in hearing whether there is any sort of response that we could
get from the Corps of Engineers to -- from DIA with regard to the points that were made
by the speakers. So is there anybody here to speak to those?
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Do you want to hear from the Corps?
MR. BOURGEOIS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Bobby Bourgeois,
the on-site DIA Project Manager for the program. I'm Mr. Manzelmann's on-site representative.
What specific comments? I mean, rather than trying to --
COMMISSIONER MAY: Well, just the three at the very end. So requesting the DIA to reaffirm
that no trees will be lost in the Centrum Project, that's one. Two, encourage the project
team to use ESD to the MEP. And three, examine closely the conceptual campus-wide Stormwater
Management before you approve it. Well, that is really on us.
But if you want to speak to the campus-wide Stormwater Management Plan and now strong
you think it is, this is your opportunity. MR. BOURGEOIS: The campus Stormwater Management
Plan, as Mr. Dettman alluded, is at a 15 percent design level, much of what Mr. Berg and Mr.
Zeizel mentioned, Dr. Zeizel mentioned, are valid points.
A lot of those points will be picked up as we proceed with the design, as we proceed
through 35, 65 and 95 percent design. Borings, it is our intent understanding the Commission,
MDEs, the communities, interest in providing it, more infiltration on-site. It is our intent
to proceed with borings at the 35 percent design. We are currently working with the
Corps of Engineers and URS to contract that 35 percent design now, so we can proceed with
that over the summer and the fall. So the concerns voiced by Mr. Berg and Dr.
Zeizel are valid concerns. They will be picked up, but I think, at this point of the level
of design, we don't have answers to those questions now, but we will continue to evaluate
them. Regarding ESDs on the remainder of campus,
that is something else that we will look at as we proceed with this design. The engineers
at the time took a look at the existing site plan, the proposed site plan and tried to
quantify it, tried to show that there is sufficient room and there is sufficient -- that with
the room on campus, with the location of the facilities, they can provide stormwater management
facilities to meet MDE and EISA 438 requirements. As opportunities present themselves as we
proceed with the design, we will exceed those requirements to the extent that we can.
COMMISSIONER MAY: The first one was the commitment on trees.
MR. BOURGEOIS: Trees. Included with the RFP to Whiting-Turner and their subcontractors,
we included Mr. Manzelmann's commitment letters to the community dated both January and June
of 2012. The January commitment letter indicates his commitment to the community to not remove
any additional forested area on-site. Working with the community, some forested
area was removed on North Campus to accommodate the parking garage, but Whiting-Turner understands
Mr. Manzelmann's commitment. They are bound by contract to honor Mr. Manzelmann's commitment
to the community. So there is no intent. We will maintain the current curb lines or move
them in to the extent possible on South Campus. They are ornamental trees. There are large
ornamental trees on-campus that we have to look at. Small ornamental trees will be removed.
If a large ornamental tree, and there is a 32 inch tree to the west of the Centrum, if
that needs to be removed, we are going to work with the community before doing that.
But Mr. Manzelmann as recently as Monday made his point through myself and Mr. Ayala to
Whiting-Turner, URS and the Corps of Engineers that we are going to do everything possible
to protect the larger trees on-site. So the forested area, we are not touching
forested area. Ornamental trees, yes, and other ornamental-type trees on-campus we will
remove, but I think that is consistent with the commitment Mr. Manzelmann made in January
of 2012, sir. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I echo the words of
some of the other Commissioners about the spectacular progress that has been made in
multiple areas. One was the 25 percent -- nearly 25 percent reduction in impervious surfaces,
I think is commendable. The stormwater management clearly that effort continues.
I think the remediation of adjacent Park Service land outside the boundaries of this site is
remarkable and perhaps even unprecedented. The facade pattern accommodations, the shrinking
of the penthouses and the relocation farther to the west, the submission of the MOA with
the Park Service that will guide the future interactions, I think, is also commendable.
When the Corps has said no, I'm sorry, we are unable to do things, they have done the
due diligence, the life cycle cost analysis, the cost benefits, examined payback periods
and so forth. It's my understanding according to the EDR what we are approving today is
just for the Centrum portion of the Phase 2 on the South Campus that we will get a chance
to see this project again. The work that is going to be done on Roberdeau
and Erskine facades as well as final landscaping, so we will see at least one or two more presentations.
MR. DETTMAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. All right. So
I think we are headed in the right direction and the communication was a key measure. Involvement
of stakeholders in the development of plans, I think, is also a good recommendation and
I would encourage the Corps to follow through on it and make a commitment in that area.
Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much. Anyone
else with questions or comments on the EDR that is before you? Hearing none, is there
a motion on the EDR? PARTICIPANT: Moved.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: It has been moved and? PARTICIPANT: Second.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Seconded. The EDR -- all in favor of the EDR as presented say aye.
ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no? Thank you very
much. Thank you, Mr. Dettman. We have one more action item before two information
items. Agenda Item No. 5D is the Millennium Project at Arlington National Cemetery and
we have Mr. Hart. MR. HART: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Commission. The Department of the Army has submitted preliminary and
final site and building plans for the Millennium Project, which is located in Arlington National
Cemetery in Arlington County, Virginia. Here we have Arlington National Cemetery and
with the surrounding context. As a refresher, I last presented this project in April and
at a concept level and at the time, I noted that Congress became concerned a number of
years ago that ANC were onto National Cemetery would cease being an active cemetery and they
passed laws to extend the life of ANC through expansion on nearby lands.
The millennium property was one of these sites shown here in the upper left portion of the
Arlington National Cemetery. The other site was the former Navy Annex site
and that is shown in the bottom of the south portion of the slide. And the Navy Annex will
be submitted to NCPC for review in the future. So here is the site which you remember is
comprised of land from both Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, also the National Park Service as well
as an existing maintenance yard at ANC. The Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall portion is
generally a grassy area with some trees while the land from the National Park Service, which
was part of the Arlington House property, is generally wooded.
To refresh your memory, there are moderate to severe slopes on either side of the perennial
stream. The stream is shown here in blue which runs through the site. The current condition
of the stream bank is poor as previous storm events have caused moderate to severe erosion
over time. A stream restoration project is included in
this project as well and this is to bring the stream bed up to the level of the flood plain which I'll note in an upcoming
slide. Also, again as a refresher, here are a few
images of the site. The image on the upper left is the boundary wall, which is shown
here, there. There is a portion of this that actually has some invasives growing on it.
And this boundary wall, the 1,300 foot length of this wall will be removed as part of this
project and this is because of grade changes that are occurring and also the wall is somewhat
dilapidated in its current condition. The image on the right shows the steep erosion
of the perennial stream that I mentioned earlier. This erosion problem was due to the -- was
due to water coming actually down from the Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall site, but that
situation has been corrected and that water is not flowing down any more.
And the bottom image is showing the existing ANC maintenance area and it is looking toward
the south. And this would be-- the general location is where the road is going to be
located in the project. So back in April, the Army submitted this
concept design. It included several columbaria areas, also in-ground interment sites, a new
perimeter wall, a loop road as well as stream restoration. It consisted of 29,922 burial
sites for both inurnment and interment burials. And this is what is now being proposed. The
main change and I'll flip back to the concept proposal, the final site. The main change
being the removal of one of the columbaria due to budgetary constraints. The ANC will
replace this columbarium with trees and landscaping to increase the buffer with the National Park
Service property, which is to the east, which is actually down in this slide. The final
plan includes space for 27,242 burial sites. The ANC is including over 16,000 niches in
their design and I'll go through some of the elements to kind of point them out on the
map. The 16,000 niches are -- is a decrease of 1,500 niches from the previous design due
to the loss of the one columbaria. This columbaria here is shown all in red and then the niche
wall is included in that as well. There are also in-ground burial areas and
these are shown in the yellow. The in-ground burial areas are for both cremations as well
as crypts for coffins. Finally, there are other improvements that
are being proposed as well. They include the loop road that is shown here in purple, two
committal shelters for services and these are shown in yellow. There are also several
bridges that cross over the streams and a stream -- the Stream Restoration Project.
There are also pathways which will lead from the roadway to the columbaria, also to the
in-ground burial areas as well as the perimeter wall. These pathways will be made of a porous
pavement material. The image on the upper left is showing a section
of the loop road. CFA approved the final -- this final design for the entire project in April
and delegated the final roadway design to CFA staff. CFA -- at the time, CFA requested
that ANC explore ways to reduce the width of the roadway or to use porous pavement.
After some research, ANC determined that it wasn't able to reduce the width of the roadway
due to operational concerns and that the porous pavement would not work due to some maintenance
concerns. ANC then decided to designate a parking area in the proposed roadway.
So in the same roadway width, which would be visually separated from the proposed travel
lanes, but would not involve the actual widening of the road. What is shown here in the upper
left is a 6 foot concrete strip which is next to the existing asphalt travel lanes.
CFA has approved this, staff has approved this change and NCPC staff supported it as
well. Okay. As I showed back in April, in my April
presentation, this is a section of the -- of what is being proposed. This section has not
changed. There is a 60 foot grade change, as you will note, from the Joint Base Myer-Henderson
Hall side of the property, which is just over here to the left down to the stream bed.
And as I noted before, the stream has -- was very eroded previously. And so what they are
trying to do is to maintain the riparian buffer or bring the stream up to where the riparian
buffer is to allow the flood plain to actually do what it is supposed to do, which is help
to deal with and spread out the water during flooding events.
Also, I'll note that the perimeter wall that is shown here will have niches on the Arlington
National Cemetery side and on the Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall side. It will be clad
in Seneca Sandstone. And this Seneca Sandstone is a reused material from the wall, the historic
boundary wall that is being removed. So they are doing that. That is actually part of the
mitigation which I'll talk about in an upcoming slide.
The National Park Service requested that the ANC provide stormwater management for an ANC
parking lot. This parking area is near the millennium site and you can see in this image
here, this is the millennium site outlined in red. And the parking area is here. And
what it does is actually drain down into the perennial stream. And where it is draining,
it is actually eroding or has eroded out the outfall area.
And so what they are doing is they are doing some work to detain some of the water up -- I'm
sorry, I shouldn't say that. This is a change to the elevation. This is a higher level than
it is down here. So they are detaining some of the water up here before it continues down
the slope. So what is included here is 19,000 cubic feet
of water or detention or storage. They are also looking at removing pavement around some
of the existing trees and this area here, these areas here are the areas that they are
going to be removing over the pavement that they will be removing around the trees.
And as well as restoring an outfill area, this area down here, and the drainage area
that continues down to the stream as well. And they are doing this by treating the water
at this location up here and they are doing that through a hydrodynamic separator, which
basically allows the solids to drop down into an area in the water to continue moving on.
And this helps to clean the water as it is going from the paved area into the basin,
into the storage and then down into the outfall and down into the perennial stream.
So what did staff look at with regard to this project? The Commission comments are shown
here. They are to continue to refine the design to minimize harm and provide appropriate mitigation
through consultation, as required by the -- by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act to refine the Visual Impact Survey in ways that are responsive to consulting parties,
to do a thorough exploration of decreasing the width of the road bed in the areas at
Arlington House Woods and finally, to prevent a net tree loss and I'll talk about all of
these in a minute. ANC has continued to refine the design and
minimize harm and provide actually appropriate mitigation through consultation. And I'll
talk about the mitigation in an upcoming slide. ANC has also refined and included additional
analysis in the Visual Impact Survey, that has been responsive to consulting parties.
They note that the width of the road at the Arlington House Woods is needed for operational
reasons and really this is about their -- the need for families that are coming for the
services to be able to park. They don't really have parking areas here
and the roadways are used for that need. And they need the area for the roadway to be able
to do that. And ANC has also increased the tree replacement and now meets the NCPC Comp
Plan policy of no net tree loss. So they conducted a Visual Impact Study looking
at the site from a variety of advantage points. The image over on the left here of the map
shows these points that they were kind of looking at the millennium site which is here
in kind of the middle of the slide. And in April this study had not been completed
and the consulting parties requested a few additional sites in these areas that are highlighted
in yellow are the areas that were really included. And these were really looking from the Arlington
House Woods towards the site. The images on the -- the photographs on the
left or excuse me, on the right are showing views from Arlington House itself. So views
from here looking down towards the site. And because of topography as well as just vegetation,
there are a number of trees that are between this site and the Millennium Project. It really
isn't visible from the Arlington House itself. Now, with regard to the views from Arlington
House Woods, ANC has included some views. This is one of the views. I would like to
note that the Arlington House Woods area does not contain any trails and doesn't have plans
to do so, so this view from -- at the bottom here would not be really seen by the general
public, but it is something that you need to understand what the views are, what they
would look like. And while the project is visible, as you can
tell in this image on the bottom, during the winter months, ANC notes these views would
be consistent with and complimentary to the overall image of Arlington National Cemetery.
It is a -- during the Section 106 process, they did have a determination of adverse effect
on historic properties and they have done some mitigation for dealing with that.
This table does show the change from the concept stage to the final stage. The number of trees
to be removed has increased by 23 trees, but they also did increase the number of trees
to be planted from 600 trees to 800 trees and in addition to the 800 trees, 1,600 seedlings.
ANC estimates that approximately 65 percent of these seedlings would survive in the first
five years. Staff feels that this exceeds the no net tree
policy -- no net loss tree policy in the Comp Plan.
ANC developed mitigations as part of the NEPA in Section 106 processes in conjunction with
consulting parties, which included NCPC staff. The Section 106 process was completed on June
3rd of this year and the NEPA process was completed with a signed FONSI on June 5th
of this year. The mitigation here is shown -- includes the
documentation and reuse of the historic wall as well as that landscape in the area, the
reuse of the wall material. The mitigation also includes planting of 800 trees and the
1,600 seedlings, which as I noted earlier, as well as 12,000 shrubs.
They are looking at restoration of the deeply incised perennial stream area and the removal
of invasives on ANC property for three years. ANC has also agreed to let local groups come
on-site and remove vegetation, so if there are older trees that they like to preserve,
they could take acorns or take the tree specimens themselves as well as providing for tree cross-sections
from several larger trees on the site to Arlington County Government and this is for just kind
of understanding what the age of the trees are.
And with that, the Executive Director recommends that the Commission approve the preliminary
and final site and building plans for the 27 acre Millennium Project at the Arlington
National Cemetery which includes 27,242 inurnment and interment types to committal structures
perimeter wall, niche spaces, loop road, stormwater management system and 1,700 linear feet of
stream restoration. And the Commission also notes that the current
proposal includes a refining Visual Impact Survey that is responsive to consulting parties
as well as reflects the result of ongoing efforts to reduce adverse effects at the Arlington
House Woods and mitigation through consultation as required by the National Historic Preservation
Act. I'm not going to read the written mitigation,
because I just spoke of that. It also prevents the net tree loss by increasing the number
of replacement trees to 800 and adding 1,600 seedlings to the reforested area.
And then finally, the Commission notes the applicant is not reducing the width of the
road bed at the 145 year-old Arlington House Woods because of operational concerns.
And with that, I conclude my presentation. And we have some members of Arlington National
Cemetery here to answer CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Sure thing. Thank you.
Mr. Hart? COMMISSIONER HART: Was there a sediment control
plan included in this submission? MR. HART: Yes, they worked with the Department
of Environmental -- the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality as well as the Virginia
Department of Conservation and Recreation for stormwater as well as the Sediment Control
Plan. And they can speak to that a little bit more.
COMMISSIONER HART: My concern is that not only are we taking out a whole lot of mature
trees, planting very small trees as replacements, but we are going to be regrading an enormous
area. That disturbance is going to cause, you know, the potential for a lot of sedimentation
into this perennial stream on out into the Potomac and then the Chesapeake Bay.
It's, you know, one of those things that we need to be cognizant of and avoid any adverse
impacts. So I was curious to know, you know, what kind of stormwater protection we're going
to have after it is built, but also that during construction there be adequate sedimentation
control built in to this sequence. LT. COL. FEDROFF: Sir, I'm Lieutenant Colonel
Dave Fedroff from Arlington National Cemetery. That is certainly a very detailed question
for me to kind of answer, but I do have some of our consultants here, I would ask if maybe
they could. Tom, are you probably the best here?
MR. MASSEY: I'm sure Scott could probably join me and talk a little bit about it.
LT. COL. FEDROFF: I'll sort of leave that to those who have a little more expertise
in the specifics to answer that. Thank you, sir.
MR. MASSEY: Good afternoon. My name is Tom Massey. I'm with Jacobs. We are the architect
of record for the project. Scott Petrey, if I said that correctly is with WSSI, as well-respected
consultant in the Virginia area in charge of our stream restoration and I think you
can report today that we have received final approval for our sediment control and other
storm water facilities from the state. Is that true?
MR. PETREY: Yes, we have received approval from the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality for the cemetery expansion. We received the SPGP permit for that as well as the nationwide
permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for the Stream Restoration Project.
MR. MASSEY: So it has been a big concern of a lot of parties here because of just the
points you have made earlier. And we think we have made a good move in moving that Sediment
Control Plan into reality. COMMISSIONER HART: And will the-- there is
an exhibit in the EDR that shows two bioretention areas and one sheet flow area. Are those the
only stormwater management elements for this Millennial Park area?
MR. MASSEY: Dan might be able to answer that question for me as well, if I can bring one
more of my associates to the stand. Dan Deible is our landscape architect also with me from
Jacobs. MR. DEIBLE: Yes, actually, I wanted just to
go back. We have the permit for the Sediment Erosion Control, but it sounded like you wanted
just a little bit of detail and I would just say that sediment erosion control consists
of two phases. During all points of the construction project,
the stream restoration is actually the first item that happens. And then as we start to
expand out into the project, we use a variety of pretty much everything in the arsenal of
the sediment erosion control to prevent any of that sediment to reach the stream because,
you know, it has just been restored. Stormwater management does consist of those
items that you mentioned. But probably the largest aspect of the stormwater management
is the entire burial areas are all covered with approximately 2 feet of a very -- it's
called compost amended soil. It does two things. It creates a great growing medium for the
lawn that is, you know, a large maintenance site ongoing for the cemetery, but it also
is very absorbent and it's actually a stormwater management measure now, newly adopted stormwater
management measure in the State of Virginia. It infiltrates very effectively. In fact the
entire burial area, you have the 2 feet of that soil further than in the crypt area,
it's a very permeable gravel that surrounds the concrete crypt, so the water actually
has to -- gets to infiltrate through approximately 8 feet of the material before it gets to a
subsurface drainage system. So it slows the water down. It lets the water
infiltrate into the ground. And so we feel that we have a very effective system to deal
with the stormwater and mitigate any of its -- you know any extra runoff or the quality
as well. COMMISSIONER HART: And that subsurface drainage
system goes where? MR. DEIBLE: It eventually ties into several
points where there is existing channels that go into the stream and it discharges into
that channel at the bottom, you know, into the ultimate discharge from the site, which
is the stream through the center. COMMISSIONER HART: Okay. Advantagement to
the road areas because the roads have shrunk? MR. DEIBLE: Well, that -- the roads did shrink
a little. We took as much of the road as we could and reduced the width from 30 feet to
22 feet, so there is a section of road. COMMISSIONER HART: Yes.
MR. DEIBLE: And I wanted to mention that, too, because that did reduce our impervious
area. But the roads are being treated by those bioswales that you see on the plan. Those
are specifically to treat the impervious area on the roads.
COMMISSIONER HART: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could I ask? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Yes. Tom?
COMMISSIONER WHITE: I would like to ask another question about the idea of having people come
in and take the trees that were fallen and acorns. How did that idea come about and how
is that going to be managed? I imagine there is enormous symbolic value in that to folks
who have family members -- MR. MASSEY: Can I ask the colonel to respond?
COMMISSIONER WHITE: -- there. I'm just curious. It's a really interesting idea.
LT. COL. FEDROFF: Part of the mitigation that was brought to us by Arlington County primarily
their forestry group with the county and they have actually already come to the site and
done some collection. Really, they have been the only organization who has really pursued
that. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Um-hum.
LT. COL. FEDROFF: And it is -- and we are kind of giving them the opportunity because
due to seasonal changes, there are some different items to collect, different times of the year.
So they have already come to do some during the spring and with construction probably
not starting until later this year, they -- I suspect they will want to come and do it again.
And actually that is something the cemetery has done sort of on a recurring basis as has
allowed that to happen. So it really wasn't that bit of a change for us.
One of the other mitigations that Carlton had mentioned was they had requested for,
they are calling them, cookies, but slices of the trees and I think they are going to
use them, as you said, probably for some age things, but also I think they want to sort
of preserve them and put them in libraries within the county as well.
So it was really a very easy to agree to mitigation and just simple coordination between a few
of their staff and a few of our staff to sort of work out access, but nothing out of the
ordinary for what we do there. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes it just seems like
a very interesting potential, too, in terms of education and, you know, people feeling
a part of a very important place. Thank you. LT. COL. FEDROFF: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I wanted to compliment
the team on the multiple mitigations that was covered in the presentation, reduction
in the number of columbariums, the use of materials including reuse of the deteriorating
portions of the wall working hard. Again, while we have not yet implemented the
caliper standard, the replacement in-kind in the numbers of trees is commendable. Many
of us are sensitive to that. The stormwater management including the stream
restoration, those of us that are neighbors of the cemetery, including those of us at
the Pentagon that are downhill, we appreciate Commissioner Hart's questions about management
and runoff. The viewsheds, the analysis of the viewsheds,
absolutely, I think it was highlighted. Those are absolutely consistent with the use of
the site, so it's not inappropriate for the use of the -- from their elected house to
see those grave sites. We want to report also that the demolition
of the Navy Annex to the south, the 42 or 43 acres that will be turned over, that is
proceeding well. It is on schedule. some of the aspects are head of schedule. That land
straddles Columbia Pike and is adjacent to Joyce Street in collaboration with not only
the cemetery, but Arlington County on the future planning and use of that site.
So I think the project continues to make good progress and we are pleased to see hat.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Anything? Well, thank you
very much. It's a very historic project. Sensing no further comments or questions,
there is a motion and a second on the EDR. All in favor of the EDR as presented say aye.
ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no? Thank you. Mr.
Hart, thank you very much. MR. HART: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: The last two items on the agenda are information items. Agenda Item
No. 6A is an update on the Congressionally-requested height master plan study. And making his final
appearance before us is Mr. Zaidain. MR. ZAIDAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman
and Members of the Commission. As the Chairman said, this presentation is an information
presentation just to update the group on where we are in the study of the Height Act as requested
by Congress. Essentially, we are wrapping up the first
phase of the study and what we have accomplished to this point and then also to talk about
what is coming to the Commission and the public in the next month or so.
So just some background on where we are or how we got to this point. Last summer on July
19th there was a hearing before the House Committee on oversight of Government Reform.
To discuss the Height Act, there were a panel of experts to testify, which included Marcel
Acosta, our Executive Director, and Harriet Tregoning of the District.
A follow-up to that hearing was a letter from the House Committee requesting a joint study
of the Height Act and that came in October and that request was for the District of Columbia
and the National Capital Planning Commission to jointly study the Height Act and essentially
see if it is still working for the city and to analyze strategic changes to the Act, if
appropriate. In November there are responses from the Chairman
Bryant, NCPC Chairman Bryant and Mayor Gray, accepting that task and laying out some general
parameters for how the study will be conducted. In this communication, there were three general
principles that were established that kind of represent the foundation of the study.
The first principle is to ensure the prominence of federal landmarks and monuments by preserving
their views and settings. The second principle is to maintain the horizontality
of the monumental city skyline. And the third principle is to minimize negative
impacts to nationally significant historic resources, including the L'Enfant Plan.
So we still time in this first phase discussing these principles and trying to flesh them
out not only with federal and District stakeholders, but also with the public. It was a central
part of our public outreach, which I'll discuss a little bit of.
In terms of how the study is proceeding, the first phase, which as I said we are wrapping
up, included some discussion of the study principles really trying to understand what
those principles mean, really trying to understand federal and local interests.
We have also done some case studies to understand how this issue of building height has been
managed in other cities around the world that have similar characteristics as Washington
and have faced similar development patterns. We have also concluded our first set of public
meetings, which occurred at the end of May and in June and I'll talk a little bit about
how that outreach has gone. The second phase which is what we are moving
into consists of more of the analytical piece. There are two studies which have been underway.
One is a modeling study, which is looking at the visual and physical effects of varying
heights in certain areas of the city and also an economic study that has been underway.
Both of these studies have been contracted by the District of Columbia and these will
be presented to the Commission at its special work session on July 24th. So they are -- will
be coming out. And they also will be the subject of the public meetings in August, so that
we can thoroughly vet them with the public. And then the final phase, we will be developing
draft recommendations which will then come to the Commission for its deliberation and
then there will be a set of public hearings to gather public input on those recommendations.
And then the recommendations will be voted on and transmitted to congress in the fall.
So to talk a little bit about the case studies and then the full document is on the web to
be downloaded, but we looked at several cities, Paris, France, Vancouver, Barcelona, London
was kind of the first batch that we looked at and really the lessons here generally looked
at how these cities managed building height and the context of really important assets
that establish the quality of the city. So in Paris, building heights were pretty
much focused -- additional building heights, I should say, were pretty much focused away
from the historic core of the city and focused on the periphery of the central historic part
of Paris. Vancouver took advantage of views and experiences
to its natural features in molding building height. The kind of urban design framework
in that example focused on preserving and enhancing views to the mountains and to the
waterfront areas. Barcelona which is very similar to Paris focused
it's additional building height in higher development in areas outside of its historic
core, which is essentially the Gothic area. London is a very interesting example, because
it focused its building height, framework on preserving and enhancing views to a specific
building, which is St. Paul's Cathedral. So if you look at that case, you will see the
-- the one in example provides examples where there is specific view corridors that are
preserved to that civic building to preserve its prominence in the setting. And then the
second batch of case studies we looked at looked at how building heights are focused
on specific historic features. In Philadelphia, this is the case study of
how additional building heights have changed around the historic city all and downtown
Philadelphia. Madison, Wisconsin, it's framework has been
focused on preserving views to the state capital and establishing what is called a Zone of
Respect around that state capital to preserve its views.
Hamburg, Germany and Dublin, Ireland are really good examples, because their frameworks focus
on the skylines and really enhancing and establishing the prominence of certain characteristics
on the skyline and Hamburg it's the church steeples. In Dublin, it is certain different
features that vary around the city and the image I showed here is one of the historic
churches. In St. Louis, the example there, of course,
is focused no the arch and preserving building heights so that the arch remains prominent
in the landscape there. So this is just a good way to get the study
kicked off, so we look at best practices from other areas. We are certainly not trying to
turn Washington into one of these cities specifically, it was meant to start generating ideas and
discussion which it has with our stakeholders and the pub.
So I'm going to kind of pitch it for Office of Public Engagement here and talk about the
public outreach. Again, we have done a host of public events to really get the dialogue
started about the public outreach. And I think many of the Commissioners have attended these
events. On March 5th, we hosted an event at the National
Archives that was attended by over 200 people. They had a panel of speakers from several
international cities to talk about how building heights have been managed in their respective
cities. We have established an on-line presence that
is rolling and is ongoing. There is a portal where anybody can provide comments. We have
received over 100 comments so far with people providing their opinions about this issue
and those comments are then posted on the website, so you can get on there and read
what other people have said. We also have the Twitter campaign going where
people can tweet about these issues and keep a dialogue going.
We have held four public meetings to vet the initial ideas and principles that have been
established in Phase 1. I think the intent here is to have a public meeting in each ward.
And so in this first chunk, we had meetings in three wards and then the next chunk, which
is Phase 2, we will hit the remaining wards. But these were held towards the end of May
and in early June. And again, these talked about the principles that were established
for the study, some of the federal and local interests. We presented the information of
the case studies and we also wanted to educate the public on exactly what the study is, why
we are doing it and how it is being conducted. Part of those meetings as we had some comment
cards, which people are allowed to jot down their thoughts. We also had an opportunity
to provide -- to have a participant provide post cards from the future of what Washington
skyline may look like as it evolves, given the outcome of the Height Study and these
are an example of some of the drawings that we have got. Actually some pretty good drawings
from the public. And then we actually got a couple of messages
as well through that process. There is a document on-line through our website that has all of
the raw comments from these public meetings compiled, so you are more than welcome to
get on that -- and download that document and see all of the specific comments.
In general, there has been a range of opinions. There certainly is no one prevailing opinion
that is really the wringing out. We have heard everything from maintaining the status quo
and don't change the Height Act to explore radical changes to the Height Act. So it really
is a wide range of opinions that we have received to this point and I do encourage you to look
at the document. In terms of themes that really kind of make
the dialogue complex, we have heard themes about affordability, density, neighborhood
protection, the issue of home rule is an important one about why there should even be a Federal
Height Act. And then also, there has been a lot of dialogue about the Federal Height
Act versus local zoning. What issues should be properly addressed in
the Federal Height Act? What issues should be properly addressed in local zoning? There
is a lot of concern which relates to the theme of density about things like infrastructure,
capacity and transportation. So there is really a lot of really complex
issues that almost go beyond just building height that have been brought up in these
discussions. And we are certainly looking forward to keeping those discussions going
in our continued public outreach. An additional aspect beyond just public meetings,
we have been convening federal stakeholder conversations. This is really pulling together
a wide range of federal representatives, facility managers, security professionals, representatives
from the historic community to coming in and hep facilitate discussions on this issue.
We have had two, to this point, in addition to individual meetings with federal agencies.
And some of the Agency themes that we have been collecting there is obviously issues
related to security and communications infrastructure, just trying to understand how this al relates.
The facility operations, mission implications and then also historic, cultural and symbolic
resource impacts. So just trying to get the dialogue going with the federal agencies understanding
what other federal interests may be out there. And we will continue those stakeholder conversations
into the next phase. So in the next phase, which is Phase 2, which
will be -- the focus of these will be the economic and height studies that are becoming
available towards the end of the month. There will be a special Commission meeting
again on July 24th where this be presented and discussed with the Commission. And then
there will be series of public meetings through the beginning of August, the dates up here,
and there will be in the area of Tenleytown arranging around the city including Catholic
University and then we will have one of the Office of Planning as well.
So we are looking forward to getting additional public outreach and really getting into some
specific discussions related to live study. And so just to kind of prep the Commission
on what you are going to see on July 24th, the Height Modeling Study is structured in
kind of two basic ways. The study is looking at skyline and aerial views and how various
levels of building height can impact certain areas.
The study is looking at three different geographic levels. One is the law L'Enfant City, which
is the historic core of the city that was planned by Pierre L'Enfant. The topographic
bowl, which is sort of that ridge escarpment area around the L'Enfant City and then illustrative
areas, which are areas that have been identified in the District Comprehensive Plan as high-
or medium-density areas and for future land use, which could be potential reasons that
might be appropriate for additional growth. And then beyond that, there are street level
corridor views which looks at the impacts of additional height we have on the pedestrian
experience and on public space. So there are selected views from certain streets both within
the L'Enfant City and out that looks at the impacts of these varying eights.
So it's a good way to get the dialogue started about how change to building heights may affect
important areas of the city. And then secondly is the economic feasibility
study which is a technical study that looks at the costs, construction cost implications
of additional height. And then the economic impact of any change in height. So these two
will be on the agenda for the 24th and there will be the District and its consultants here
to present and discuss that with you. Okay. So beyond July 24th, we are having additional
public meetings. Again, draft recommendations to the Commission in September, which will
also be followed up by public hearings. And then there are, as I said, ongoing opportunities
for public input. The website is up and running and is getting
a lot of hits at ncpc.gov\heightstudy. We have a direct email setup at info@ncpc.gov
and then the Twitter campaign is set by the handle at #HeightDC. So that's where we are
now at the conclusion of Phase 1 and we are moving into Phase 2. And again, that will
be the subject of the July 24th special Commission work session. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Ms. Tregoning?
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Just a comment. I'll say something about what a pleasure it has
been to work with the NCPC Commissioners, my fellow Commissioner and staff. I'm really
gratified that so many people have been at public meetings and I want to call out Commission
Dixon, who literally hosted us for the meeting in Ward 8 and got a great turnout for that
meeting. So that was particularly good.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: And cooked for you. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: And cooked great food
I hear. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Great food, great
food. And also just to recognize David Zaidain and the work that he has done on this effort.
Not surprisingly, this is both a very high profile and contentious topic. Contentious
in public meetings, a little bit testy sometimes among our federal partners. And he has been
a constant professional and very much a pleasure to work with.
So we are going to miss him in this process. I can't believe he would bail before the report
to Congress. MR. ZAIDAIN: It wasn't intentional, I promise.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: But in any event, I just wanted to acknowledge this great effort
and also just to wish him well on behalf of the D.C. Office of Planning. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: Mr. Chairman, I have -- first of all thank you. It is wonderful
to be a part of the Anacostia, all over the city with this effort.
The one thing I have noticed about NCPC during my experiences here is that we have demonstrated
the ability to do outreach to make the community feel -- be a part, not feel, be a part of
our planning. I really think it is one thing that we have
carried out to the other capitals around the world how we do that. And many don't do it
well as we do it here. And I think this is a great opportunity to do it and it is going
very well now. And I'm going to do more of attending, because I think it's fascinating.
We have been dealing with this height issue for years in D.C. and now all of a sudden
we're going to open it up for a real discussion. So we will see what happens. I also was hoping
that even though it's summertime, I would really like to get some young kids' visions
of this as a way we can reach focus groups or touch the school system or summer programs,
because I'm -- because they are the ones that are going to live with this future plan or
this future concept and it would be clever to see what they think of it.
The other point I want to make is I believe the letter we got which started this whole
thing in the presentation that was made at the Archives Building, indicated some concern
for the appearance of the rooftops when you come into the cit flying in. And not everybody
flies in, but there are some who do. And I thought there was some indication that
some buildings could maybe be given some height adjustments to accommodate making those rooftops
more functional and less air conditioning, heating and I think that as said repeatedly
that when you fly in, you see these tops that look so bad.
And maybe it would be one way to look at buildings where we could do something and maybe height
would be appropriate, acceptable and still make the rooftops more functional and look
better. I think that's it.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I will just say that is something that we are looking at among
the alternatives. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Miller?
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Yes. I just wanted to echo our thanks to David Zaidain for all your
excellent professional work on this plan and all the other plans and projects throughout
the years. It has been a pleasure to work with you and I commend the staff on the public
outreach. I would say that if meetings aren't well-attended
in the month of August that maybe we should have another one for Phase 2 some time after,
maybe the second week in September or something, but maybe your outreach is so good that you
will keep people from taking vacation. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. May?
COMMISSIONER MAY: Yeah, I would like to underscore both points, thanks to Mr. Zaidain. It has
been a pleasure over the many, many years working with you going all the way back to,
I think, when you were on the BZA and I was in a different job.
Anyway, the -- but I am concerned. I mean, that was the one problem that I saw in the
presentation is public meetings in August. And it's just such a taboo thing for us. We
don't even go near that in the Park Service. It just doesn't -- it is a bad thing to have
to do. And I understand why we have to do it in this circumstance.
I was at another meeting on this topic that was not one that you sponsored, but it was
sponsored by another organization and the cries of conspiracy started going up about
this. And I tried to defend NCPC because at that time, I didn't know that you were planning
meetings in August. Oh, no, they wouldn't do that, they are very sensitive about this.
So anyway, if there is anything that can be done to repeat the information or do something
in September to make sure that you touch the folks who would otherwise not be able to make
one of the other ones. I assume the four that are happening in August are essentially the
same content, right? MR. ZAIDAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Right. MR. ZAIDAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAY: So if there could be a repeat in early September, I think that you would
be able to quell any of that criticism. But I also think that it is -- if you do go ahead
and set that out, that you make it very clear to everybody that the content will be the
same in all of these things. So it's not -- you know, because some people want to go to every
meeting and it may not -- it's not really necessary. Okay. Thanks.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much. MR. ZAIDAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: The last information item on our agenda is Agenda Item No. 6B and it's
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and its Momentum Plan.
MR. ACOSTA: Before we begin, I have to recuse myself from this matter. I am a member of
the Board of Directors of WMATA and this may be coming up.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Yes, sir. Mr. Staudigl, welcome. MR. STAUDIGL: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Today you are going to hear
an information presentation from Mr. Mort Downey, one of the Federal Government's representatives
to the WMATA Board. Mr. Downey is going to update you on Momentum,
the Metro Strategic Plan. You previously heard a presentation on the plan last winter while
it was in development. The board has since adopted Momentum and you each have a copy
of it in front of you. In addition to working to bring the system
to a high level of service, Metro has begun planning for the system's future. It developed
a public outreach process to understand the region's priorities in which provided the
themes for Momentum. The plan has safety as its highest priority
and emphasizes the importance of optimizing the current transit network and maximizing
capacity. Momentum is built around four goals and they
are accomplished on the plan and proposes several initiatives be implemented by 2025.
And Mr. Downey is going to provide you with these details and he is going to be available
for questions following his presentation. While today's presentation is just for informational
purposes, WMATA does request that NCPC review the plan and consider endorsing it. As described
in the WMATA compact, NCPC reviews changes to WMATA's Mass Transit Plan.
And we anticipate coming before you for potential endorsement of Momentum at the September meeting.
And prior to that, the staff will review Momentum for consistency with NCPC plans and policies
and will make a recommendation regarding endorsement. An important point to note is that endorsement
of Momentum does not imply the Commission's future approval of the plan's individual projects
as they are going to come before you for review. Mr. Downey brings more than 50 years of experience
in operations and management of major public transportation authorities. He has been involved
with the Metro system for more than 40 years helping accrue a complete fundamental system
of both Government officials and industry experts.
Having previously served as the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation and
as the Executive Director of the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority,
Mr. Downey has run and overseen efficient and accountable transit programs across the
nation. Mr. Downey?
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Downey, welcome. MR. DOWNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: I'm glad you are here. MR. DOWNEY: Good to be here.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Yes, sir. MR. DOWNEY: As you have heard, I'm one of
the two federal appointees to the Washington Metro Board. This is actually a new configuration
for the board to have federal appointees and we particularly appreciate you lending Marcel
to us for probably more time than either you or he expected it would be, but he is an important
contributor to the board. I'm going to move quickly through the slideshow,
which we -- which describes our strategic plan and, as noted, it was issued in draft
earlier this year and more recently our board has adopted it. We are adopting it has a basis
to direct our future activities, both in terms of managing the system and in guiding its
future growth. We put it forward to better explain what we
are doing now, but also to encourage a dialogue about what we should be doing and what the
region should be doing in the future to support growth, economic viability and sustainability.
We want to convert this from our plan to the region's plan.
There is still a lot that will have to be done to execute it over probably many decades
of these specific project decisions, environmental reviews. Certainly we have to develop a funding
proposal that makes it work. We will have to adopt formal amendments to the Regional
Transit Plan which is our charter responsibility. We will have to conform to federal funding
requirements and the like. But most importantly, what we will have to do is continue to improve
and rebuild the system we have. We will not have credibility to talk about what we should
do over the next 50 years if within the next two or three years we don't finish the job
of fixing the system that we have. But even though there is much to be done,
I am excited about the prospects. I am confident that we are making progress day-by-day. I
have been on the board now a little over three years joining somewhat after the tragic Fort
Totten crash in the summer of 2009. And I believe with an almost entirely new board
and with a new CEO, we are making progress. So let me talk about where we are with the
plan. Today we are heavily into the rebuilding of the foundation of the system, a $5 billion
six-year federal local partnership for rebuilding. If you are moving around the system on weekdays
or particularly on weekends, you see how much work is going on. We are literally rebuilding
the system. 21 miles of new running rail, improved escalators.
You may not believe it, but we are actually up to more than 90 percent availability on
our escalators on each day. A lot of safety improvements, many of which were suggested
by the National Transportation Safety Board and we have coming an entire replacement fleet
of subway cars to replace the oldest cars on the fleet, the first ones are about to
roll up the production line in Lincoln, Nebraska. Why are we doing all of this? Because Metro
is what keeps the region working. Over 50 years now, it has become the backbone of the
region. More than half of the jobs in this region are within a half mile of Metro Stations
or bus stops and critically for the Federal Government, it is the means of getting federal
employees to and from work every day. That's one of the reasons that the Federal Government
in 2008 passed a special unique Metro appropriation -- Metro appreciation of $150 million a year
to assure that the system is rebuilt. When we look to the future, there are a couple
of kind of frames we like to put it in. One is to ask the question what if we didn't have
the Metro? Not something we would like to think about. I came to this down first in
1975 when there was no Metro, but there was a lot of holes in the ground, but it has changed
so much since then. If we didn't have it, there would be a million
more cars on the road every day. There would have to be 1,000 new lane miles of highway.
It would not be the kind of reason that we all enjoy today. There is a wonderful PID
Chart or picture on page 16 of the report showing that if all these cars came in and
had to park in Midtown of D.C., there would no longer be a Midtown of D.C.
Essentially five levels of parking throughout the entire downtown area would have to be
there. So that's not what we want. We know what the consequences of that would be. We
have to look forward just as this region did almost 50 years ago under president Johnson's
leadership, they asked the question of what do we want to be as a region and what kind
of transportation system do we need to put in place to get there?
We think it is time to ask those questions again and hopefully come up with another good
set of answers. Another thought is what if we did nothing?
What if we just continue to run the system as it is? We are already the most congested
region in the country. It would just get worse. Metro would degrade quickly in terms of safety.
The progress that we have begun to make in the last three years would be lost pretty
quickly. The quality of life in the region would be
seriously degraded and our competitive advantage to get people to move here, take jobs create
businesses and the like would no longer exist. So we believe we have to look ahead. And our
goal initially is to maximize the effectiveness of the system we have with some improvement
the system could accomplish a lot more and then be the framework for going further. But
we need to plan. We really need to be looking at it now. Things that need to be in place
by 2025 should have started already. But if we make decisions now, we can get them in
place. The system is truly bursting at the seams
right now. I can tell you from the Orange Line this morning, we had a number of my close
personal friends who if they work out, they certainly became that as we are riding in
here. Buses are standing room only and they have to operate in the same traffic as the
auto fleets, so it's just a very inefficient operation.
But you stop and think, there are more people coming. The population projection for this
region say 30 percent more people, 39 percent more jobs. We have to figure out how to handle
that. And the infrastructure is not just going to build itself. Right now, there is no funding
in place for any substantial improvement other than the Silver Line, which, you know, is
well-under construction now. By the end of this year, it will be turned over to us to
begin operations. And the Airport Authority awarded the contract
just a few days ago to finish the system out to Dulles and beyond, but nothing is in place
beyond that. So the goals of our strategic plan really represent what we believe needs
to be done to get to where we need to go. First and foremost, we have to have the best
safety culture and the safest system in the country. I chair the board's safety committee.
We meet every month to say what are we doing to get to that place? It's what our customers
expect. It is what they deserve. The system needs to be physically safe. We need to deal
with any issues of crime in the stations and on the buses and our police force is doing
that. We need to expect the unexpected. We need
to know how we can respond quickly to things that happen on the system. I don't know if
a guest. So thank you very much and we are adjourned.