Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
MR. ACOSTA: from the RAND Corporation and Tom Vonier from AIA Europe.
They represent the various disciplines of landscape architecture, security assessment
and architectural professions and we hope this will be a very engaging discussion about
what has happened to our city and region in terms of physical impacts and changes because
of increased security measures.
This Commission has been very involved in that and I think it's a very important topic
for all the public and all of us to reflect on.
On Friday, September 16th at 9:00 a.m. , we welcome Ana Gelabert-Sanchez the former planning
director of Miami to NCPC.
She will discuss Miami's adoption of foreign-based codes and the award winning Miami21 Comprehensive
Plan and that will be here again at the Commission chambers at 9:00 on Friday, September 16th.
And also mark your calendars.
We also have an event with architect Bing Thom who was the designer of the Arena Stage
on the southwest side of the District as our speaker series event headliner.
He'll explore the legacy of mid-century modernism in Washington and how we can preserve the
recent past without losing the future and this will be held in partnership with the
Embassy of Canada and will be held at the Canadian Embassy just down the street on Pennsylvania
Avenue.
Finally, Commissioner Tregoning would like to just inform the Commission and talk a little
bit about Mayor Gray's new sustainability initiative.
So, I'll turn over the microphone to her.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Thank you very much.
I just wanted to let my fellow Commissioners know that the Mayor has asked us to launch
an initiative called Sustainable DC with the ambition of making the District of Columbia
the most sustainable city in the country and so, we've kicked off in September with what
we hope will be a robust series of discussions from house parties to big lectures to all
kinds of conversations about the ways in which we could have a greener, healthier, more inclusive,
more livable District of Columbia.
So, the website is www.sustainable.dc.gov and among the things that are on the website
right, it's both a portal for people to provide suggestions, initial suggestions about the
activities the District should undertake, but also, there's a discussion guide.
So, if any of you want to hold a house party to talk about green energy or transportation
or sustainable food, any or all of those topics, it's kind of a how-to guide about how you
would hold that discussion, what makes for a good meeting and a little bit of structure
around which you could submit some ideas to the District.
So, I hope all of you will find a way to participate and we look forward to coming back to the
Commission with some of the ideas that we get from our citizens and businesses in the
City.
Thank you.
CHAIR BRYANT: There's one item on your agenda as well, a week or so ago, we sent to you
the proposed dates for the 2012 calendar year meetings.
They will all be as usual the first Thursday of the month.
We did include a note in that meeting noting that July we might want to move the meeting
a little bit away from the 4th of July.
So, it was proposed that for the July meeting we hold the meeting on July the 12th.
Is that, at this point, seemingly good for most folks?
So, with that, everything else is usual.
July meeting will be I guess that's the second Thursday probably in July and then, of course,
we will not meet in August.
Everything else is the same.
Adopting the calendar is something we must do.
So, is there a motion to adopt the calendar for 2012 meetings?
COMMISSIONER HART: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Second.
CHAIR BRYANT: It's been moved and seconded.
All in favor say aye.
(Ayes.)
CHAIR BRYANT: Opposed no?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chair.
CHAIR BRYANT: Calendar is adopted. Mr. Dixon.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I want to go back to the Executive Director's report.
I notice in the map -- is there any reference to the bike locations and is that just going
-- is that in map?
I didn't notice it and I just wondered.
MR. ACOSTA: The Bikeshare locations?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.
MR. ACOSTA: I don't believe they're on there.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.
MR. ACOSTA: That's something we could look at.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes, I think it's -- I mean because when you have tourists looking
at this, they may want to know where they can get a bike.
MR. ACOSTA: Okay.
CHAIR BRYANT: Item 4 on the agenda is the legislative update. Ms. Schuyler.
MS. SCHUYLER: I will just call your attention to the Executive Director's report in which
there are four items listed, legislative items listed.
The first having been previously reported on to the Commission.
CHAIR BRYANT: Thank you.
CHAIR BRYANT: Agenda Item Number 5 is the Consent Calendar and we have three items.
CHAIR BRYANT: Item Number 5A is the Ambulatory Care Center Complex, a Joint Base Andrews-Naval
Air Facility Washington.
CHAIR BRYANT: Item Number 5B is the Building Identification Signs at the Federal Triangle.
CHAIR BRYANT: And Item Number 5C is a Temporary Modular Unit for the White House Visitor Center,
the Ellipse Visitor Pavilion.
Are there any questions or comments on those three items?
Hearing none, all in favor
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Yes, sir, just one.
CHAIR BRYANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Just on the disposition of the existing signs related to the Ellipse
Signage Project, we congratulate.
I think that's a wonderful project.
Standardized and systemized and I think they're more attractive and functional.
What's the disposition of the old or existing signs?
Taken down, replaced, continued so that we have a mix?
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Are you talking about the signs for the GSA project?
That's not the -- that's on Federal Triangle.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Federal. Yes.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Not the Ellipse.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I'm sorry. I misspoke.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Most of them are -- there's 27 signs I think.
Twenty-six of them are replacements. We're adding one.
Most of them are in pretty rough shape.
I don't know how we're going to dispose of them, but I'll find out.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Disposition, I guess, is what we were interested in.
That they are going to be removed and disposed of as opposed to
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes. Oh, yes.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Gotcha. Okay. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: They're fondly known as the pregnant lady signs.
Rumored to be designed by Vignelli, but not so.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: No offense, of course, to the people that find themselves in that
situation.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Otherwise known as the ribbon signs by the more genteel in the audience.
But, they're not designed by Vignelli.
That was a -- that's an urban legend and they do date from the '70s.
They are some strange aggregate of material.
I don't know how we would recycle them, but that's a good question.
CHAIR BRYANT: Any other questions on any item on the consent calendar?
Hearing none, is there a motion on the consent calendar?
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: So moved.
CHAIR BRYANT: It's been moved and seconded.
All in favor of adopting the consent calendar before you say aye.
(Ayes.)
CHAIR BRYANT: Opposed no. It's adopted.
CHAIR BRYANT: Agenda Item Number 6A is the building replacement at Dunbar Senior High
School and we have Ms. Hirsch.
Welcome.
MS. HIRSCH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission.
Today, I will be presenting a replacement facility for the Dunbar Senior High School
in Northwest Washington.
This has been submitted by the District of Columbia Office of Public Education Facilities
Modernization.
Dunbar High School is located off of New Jersey Avenue in the Central Area and, therefore,
the Commission has approval authority over this project.
The site is roughly bounded by 1st Street on the east, N Street on the south, New Jersey
Avenue to the west and the closest street on the north is P Street.
The Armstrong Manual Training School is located to the north of the existing track and Dunbar
Recreation Center is to the south of N Street.
The existing facility was built in the 1970s.
At the time it was built, the O Street right-of-way as well as portions of 3rd Street right-of-way
were closed so that the school could be built.
The six story concrete structure is of a very different mass, scale and character than the
surrounding residential community which primarily consists of two-story row homes or apartment
buildings.
Since 1917, there has been a high school on this site.
The original building was built, you can see up here in the right-hand corner, in a collegiate
gothic style.
It's main entrance was off of 1st Street and you'll note that O Street and 3rd Street were
continuous.
This school was organized around a central gathering space or armory.
The main circulation space, classrooms, the gym, the pool were all directly accessible
off of that center space.
Here we can see again an aerial of the existing site conditions.
The current school is over 300,000 square feet and it's much larger than what is needed
for the current student body.
In addition, the footprint of the building has disrupted the City's street grid.
The proposed school will be reoriented in a similar manner as the 1917 school with the
main entry off of N Street rather than O Street however.
The track and field will shift to the west towards New Jersey Avenue.
In addition, there will be an auxiliary playing field on the north side of O Street.
The main advantage to this site plan is the ability to reopen O Street to through traffic
and also to open the viewshed down 3rd Street.
In addition to the actual site layout, the floor plan of the school also looks to the
original 1917 building and is organized around a central gathering space or armory.
The classrooms would be located in a western wing off of N Street and then administrative
wing on 1st Street which would house the auditorium, gym, pool, cafeteria, media center and library.
The other advantage to this floor plan is that it would allow for the surrounding community
to have access to some of the school's amenities such as the theater or gym when the school
is not in session, at night or on the weekend.
Here we can see the proposed building.
This would be the N Street facade.
This is the four-story classroom wing, laboratory space.
The entry plaza will be framed by this tower with the armory directly behind it and then
the administrative wing which would hold the offices as well as the cafeteria and auditorium.
The track will be constructed on-axis with the new gymnasium and also have access off
of N and O Streets thereby enabling the community to also have access to the playing fields
when the school is not in session.
The main focus of the project for all agencies involved including the District's Office of
Planning, the District's Department of Transportation, the State Historic Preservation Officer as
well as NCPC was the opening of O Street as all recognized that this project presented
an opportunity to restore the City's street grid and as part of the current project, the
eastern section of the street closest to 1st Street will be constructed.
CHAIR BRYANT: Sorry. I lost my orientation. Where is north?
MS. HIRSCH: Up.
CHAIR BRYANT: North is up. Okay.
MS. HIRSCH: This is up. North. Sorry.
CHAIR BRYANT: Oh, I see.
MS. HIRSCH: In this past May, the Commission provided comments on the concept design for
the school.
At that time, the Applicant was proposing to visually reopen O Street and use the space
for packing rather than making it a functional street.
The Commission provided comments and one of those comments was to continue to work with
the District's Office of Planning and other interested parties on perhaps the design of
O Street and it becoming a functional vehicular street.
Since May, through a series of meetings as well as the Section 106 consultation process
with the SHPO, all parties have agreed and committed to opening the street.
At this point, it's a matter of identifying the financing and DDOT is working to do that.
But, all parties recognize the importance of reconnecting the street grid, improving
the circulation in the area and also this will allow the school to be more integrated
into the community, the surrounding community.
So, with that, the Executive Director's recommendation is to approve the preliminary and final site
building plans for Dunbar Senior High School and notes that with the construction of the
new school, a portion of O Street will be reopened and also notes that the SHPO has
asked that if funding is not identified within a year of the Commission's approval that all
relevant parties re-consult to identify possible solutions.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: So, I move the Executive Director's report -- recommendation and then
I would like to comment.
Make some discussion. Add some discussion.
CHAIR BRYANT: Sure.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: -- when it's before us.
CHAIR BRYANT: Yes. It's been moved.
Is there a second before we get to discussion?
It's been moved and seconded.
It's on the floor or discussion. Mr. Denis.
COMMISSIONER DENIS: Yes, just a couple of questions.
Just out of curiosity, what is the capacity of Dunbar and what is the school population
now?
MS. HIRSCH: The new school will be approximately 265,000 square feet and will accommodate 1100
students.
The existing school is over 300,000 square feet.
I don't know the current existing student body though.
COMMISSIONER DENIS: What is the capacity of Dunbar now in its --MS. HIRSCH: Now?
COMMISSIONER DENIS: Yes.
MS. HIRSCH: It's over 2,000 students.
COMMISSIONER DENIS: So, the number of students has shrunk to the point where it's being downsized
to 1917.
Did I understand that correctly?
MS. HIRSCH: Well, the new design is just referring back to the school that was designed in 1917.
It's not necessarily the same capacity that was -- of the school that was there in 1917.
COMMISSIONER DENIS: Where will the kids be going to school when the construction occurs?
MS. HIRSCH: So, the project will be constructed in phases.
The students will stay in the existing building when the new building is constructed and I
believe that -- what will have to happen is they'll find -- so, the students will be able
to still use this building while the new building is built on this portion of the site and what
will have to happen is a different facility will have to be identified for the field and
athletic activities while that's being done after the building -- the new building is
constructed, this building will come down and the new track will be constructed.
COMMISSIONER DENIS: So, there will be no relocation of the students during the construction phase.
Is that correct?
MS. HIRSCH: That is my understanding.
COMMISSIONER DENIS: Okay. Thanks.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I have a couple questions.
First, if the old footprint of the school were in existence now, would O Street be openable?
MS. HIRSCH: The old -- you mean in 1917?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes, the original footprint.
MS. HIRSCH: Yes, then O Street would probably be in its -- the configuration it was in at
the time.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: And so, O Street would have been open or closed at that time?
MS. HIRSCH: At that time, that was open.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Be open. Okay.
Well, I ask because I have not many, but a few votes that I've taken on -- when I was
on the Council.
One was to close and take down the old Dunbar building.
I have lived to regret that act.
So, maybe I'm having another bite at the apple.
It's really amazing. You know.
Really I saw it come down and now I see another one being rebuilt.
I'm kind of sorry that the gothic or historical architecture wasn't maybe more incorporated.
It may save me -- make me feel even better.
But, since the location, et cetera are integrating the historical building, I'm very pleased
and probably if the facade at least had been maintained which was an option, but the playing
field was something I thought -- I felt then was important for the young people, that building
did not -- the facade was not kept.
So, now the tapestry is open for all of this new building and so forth.
So, maybe there was something.
Maybe this is good and I'm pleased to see it going forward.
I just hope the funding can be found and there are a lot of very, very historical people
associated with Dunbar who will be a part of this -- hopefully be a part of this construction.
Maybe they can even find -- help us find some money if necessary and hopefully, it would
be a way to commemorate some of them in the construction.
And in the -- in the -- do they still have the arts percentage of construction?
That bill was passed back in the '70s to have a percentage of all construction include art
work of some kind.
Is the funding -- maybe it's a problem.
COMMISSIONER MAY: It's still on the books.
It's hardly ever been implemented.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Really.
Well, another piece I put in that didn't go anywhere.
But, let's hope that maybe on this one they can use some of that money or this idea to
put some scripts on the wall of people who went there who were very, very important in
our community.
Thank you and I'm pleased.
CHAIR BRYANT: Mr. Hart.
COMMISSIONER HART: Yes.
It's encouraging to see that the design has progressed.
The street is now being shown as an open and trafficable street.
In the past, I'm assuming that the street right-of-way was vacated for the construction
of the school.
Will that right-of-way be rededicated as part of this design?
MS. HIRSCH: So, when the street was closed for the construction of the school in the
1970s, the street was -- the title to that land was given to the abutting property owner.
So, the land is with the District of Columbia.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Let me just clarify that.
The intention -- our intention certainly is that the roadway be rededicated and that's
why DDOT's looking for additional money to -- you know, to fund this.
And I'll just point out just for the sake of completeness.
What's shown as the north field parcel, we're also encouraging DCPS to basically put out
for RFP and put housing or an apartment building and basically try to enliven the street, you
know, in all four directions.
I mean part of what we want is more safety and more activity there and as you know, school
is not even an 18-hour activity for most of the year.
So, you know, that's part of what we hope to do to make it safer and more convivial
for people in the neighborhood.
CHAIR BRYANT: Further discussion or other questions?
Mr. Provancha.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: There's a reference to the armory with a design convention.
Is that how the current building is referred to?
Is it labeled?
I'm just struggling with the concept of an armory in a school.
MS. HIRSCH: Right.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Armory in the convention sense as opposed to the design sense.
MS. HIRSCH: The original drawings were labeled as a drill hall for the central space.
They're pretty difficult to see, but I'm -- I think it's being used more conceptually rather
than in the same sense that it would be used in military.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Was there some military connection, ROTC -- Junior ROTC programs?
Something like that?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Was that the background?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I can speak to that because yes, there was a strong ROTC
program in those days.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Gotcha.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Their program was almost as strong as our program at McKinley, but
we did beat them in competition.
So, yes, that's what it does refer to a historic
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Let the record state that McKinley did beat Dunbar.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Just let the record be clear.
Right.
That's what it's about I think.
Trying to capture some of that historical presence.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: ROTC now? Is it?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Well, I don't know.
I wish they were there.
I wish it was strong.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: It's a wonderful program.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: But, I don't know.
Is it still going on, Robert? Okay.
But, that's this history of it I think.
MS. HIRSCH: I believe there is still an ROTC program there.
The Applicant is indicating that there is.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: There was talk about reorienting and shifting the entrance I think
to the N Street side of the building.
There was also something in the staff report about the close proximity to both Metro as
well as bus stations and so forth.
Does that shift or extend the entrance to the building just a matter of a few steps
so it's inconsequential or is it significant?
MS. HIRSCH: It's inconsequential. I mean.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: All right.
After hours access for community activities, those are -- the current school does not have
that type of access.
So, that's one of the benefits of the new design.
That after-hours access would be provided for the first time.
MS. HIRSCH: That is correct.
Yes, the after-hours access will be arranged with the Department of Park and Rec and the
public school system.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Bleachers.
Looks like the 2,000 bleachers are going to go on the south side of the athletic field
with the press box.
I can't tell whether it's a large press box and it separates the two sections.
What I'm thinking about is typically we separate the seating for the home team versus the visiting
team because of friction.
Not only among the students on the field, but the parents in the stands. So.
MS. HIRSCH: I believe all of the seating is on south side of the field.
There wasn't enough room to the north.
I don't know the specifics in terms of how they're dividing home from the away team.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Isn't it one-sided now?
MS. HIRSCH: Sorry. COMMISSIONER MAY: Is it one-sided now?
I thought it was.
I remember seeing it from a --MS. HIRSCH: Yes, it looks like it is all one-sided.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Yes. Yes, I think so.
I think you're right.
MS. HIRSCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MAY: A common thing in the high schools.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Must be the higher degree of civility we have under the current
administration.
It allows us to put opposing teams in close proximity. Exterior design.
I understand there's no historical facilities in the area.
It's homes and residential properties.
So, but somebody talked about preserving in some way the historical exterior of the building
as opposed to -- I'm not going to say this is unremarkable, but it clearly doesn't have
the same character as the historic building just as an observation.
The North Parcel access, no access is needed for that property.
It's not to be used in any way.
I think that's on slide maybe 9.
Yes, the North Parcel Field is not going to be actively used at all by the school.
You don't need to have any kind of controlled access across the --MS. HIRSCH: No, it will
be used by the school.
I mean they'll be a crosswalk and -- for them to cross, get across.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: We're trying to get away from so much controlled access to that
parcel.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay.
Also, one of the positive feature of the design I think is the compliance with the Height
Act even with the new tower adjacent to the exterior entrance in the armory.
I'm wrestling with the O Street.
Is the entire rebuilding and reopening of - how much of the -- turn the question around.
How much within the scope of this project is O Street?
Is it going to be a dirt track?
Is it going to be paved?
Is it at all accessible?
What's going to be done now within the scope of this project and what will be deferred
for later work?
MS. HIRSCH: So, the area that's in this blue box here will be repaved as part of this project
as the loading dock is right here for the school and
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay.
MS. HIRSCH: -- the entry for the garage is right here.
So, my understanding is that this section of the street will be repaved with the construction
of the school and that DDOT is working to identify funding for this section.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay.
The reason I'm asking about that is looking at the austere financial environment we're
in, I don't know how this would prioritize among all the other competing requirements.
I have some proposed language to amend the recommendation to get a higher level of confidence
and assurity that this future very important phase -- as many will recall in the '60s and
'70s, some of the designs within D.C. particularly for schools were these big megablocks that
cut off streets and this is a great effort to restore that east-west O Street access,
but if it never happened, then it would be a disappointment.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: What I might suggest instead is that all the Commissioners make
a pledge to buy their gasoline in the District of Columbia so that we can get that gas tax
revenue to provide the local funding.
How's that?
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: That's all the questions.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I wanted to add.
I noticed in some construction of some of the newer schools trying to make space available
for the public sometimes the restrooms are cut off from, you know, easy access.
So, I don't want to micromanage and it's probably beyond that, but please try to make sure that
the public area that's going to be available for meetings, et cetera for the community
doesn't require people going down a hallway to get to bathrooms.
It gets them into the school building.
Savoy School, we had that problem.
Great, great facility for meetings, but the problem is you got to have guards to keep
people because you got to go down the hall into the classroom areas to go to the bathroom.
So, I'm assuming they're going to think that through.
I don't know what happened.
I just think I'm bias or something.
MS. HIRSCH: Yes, and I believe there are restrooms in this area so that
COMMISSIONER DIXON: You understood what I'm saying. Right?
MS. HIRSCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes, they got restrooms in the area, too, but you got to go past the
classes and the whole building becomes opened.
The other comment I was going to make, someone -- you asked about historical buildings in
the area.
Top left corner, those structures, those little -- I guess they're purple or brick-color houses,
one of them is a house that was a residence of one of our mayors.
She spent many, many years during the summer in that house with her family.
So, I don't think that's historical, but I thought I'd just pass it on.
It is historical.
CHAIR BRYANT: Further discussion?
Questions? Mr. Miller.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: Just along those lines, I would be remiss if I didn't say this.
This is the Mayor's alma mater.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Exactly. That's right.
COMMISSIONER MILLER: And he's excited about -- I think he attended the original school
and I think he's excited about it being restored to a more glorified place than it is now and
that's all I wanted to say.
CHAIR BRYANT: It's already been moved and seconded.
We've heard the discussion.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: A proposed amendment.
CHAIR BRYANT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Something along the lines of this.
Should there be a funding issue with reopening O Street, the signal between 1st and 3rd,
within one year of the Commission's approval of this action, the D.C. Office of Public
Education Facilities Modernization is requested to submit to NCPC proposed solutions for reopening
of said street segment.
Submission deadline would be September 1st, 2012.
The rationale is just the language is a little bit loose.
It kind of reads if we ever get around to it, if we can ever raise the money, we would
continue as opposed to a solid commitment with some firm delivery dates at least to
reconvene the responsible parties.
That's the motivation behind the amendment.
CHAIR BRYANT: Can you read that again please?
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Sure.
Should there be a funding issue with reopening O Street, N.W., the segment between 1st and
3rd Streets, within one year of the Commission's approval of this action, the D.C. Office of
Public Education Facilities Modernization is required to submit to NCPC proposed solutions
for the reopening of the said street segment.
The submission deadline would be September 1st, 2012.
CHAIR BRYANT: Discussion on the amendment. Ms. Tregoning.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: With all respect, this is a District project, District budget.
I mean I very much appreciate the support of the Commission in terms of reopening O
Street.
I know that our interests are very much aligned on that and I do appreciate it because it's
not always true even with our fellow agencies and District Government.
But, it was at our initiative that O Street is being reopened.
I just -- I appreciate the sentiment.
I just think it's not appropriate.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I would want to add unless there was language that
said we would find money to help do this if we had problems in a year.
But, I say not
COMMISSIONER MAY: Undoubtedly, the place where they're looking for money is in the Federal
highway's budget.
So, I -- you know, that's where I would look if I was at DDOT.
No? Or local.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: It is not a Federal aid highway.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: That's why I need your gas tax, Peter.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. Thanks.
Well, you'll get what little I contribute.
COMMISSIONER HART: If you had a bicycle tax, it might get something.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Yes. Yes. I would tend to agree.
I don't think this is a real great concern, the reopening of the road, from NCPC's perspective.
I think that the District is trying to do the right thing and I have every confidence
that they'll get the street reopened.
I think there's enough constituent drive for this.
I think it'll happen.
It may not happen immediately or as beautifully as it might happen, but I think it'll happen
without having to require a deadline.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: As was previously noted under the current administration in
the city, there's probably a higher degree of interest and support than there had been
historically in the past.
CHAIR BRYANT: There is a motion I presume on the amendment.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MAY: Yes, sir, I had seconded it.
CHAIR BRYANT: Mr. Provancha's amendment.
The amendment has been moved.
Just to clarify, the amendment has been moved.
Is there a second on the amendment?
Hearing none, the amendment falls away.
We're back to the EDR which has been moved and seconded.
Is there further discussion on the EDR itself?
Hearing none, all in favor say aye.
(Ayes.)
CHAIR BRYANT: Opposed no.
The motion is passed.
Thank you very much, Ms. Hirsch.
CHAIR BRYANT: And the last item on the agenda is Agenda Item 6B.
It's the energy enhancements to Building #126 at the Washington Navy Yard and Mr. Hart is
here.
MR. HART: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission.
The project before you today is a project that was submitted by the Department of the
Navy.
It's for a -- it's actually a photovoltaic system on Building 386 and this is on the
Washington Navy Yard.
Building 126 is also in the Navy Yard.
It is the main visitors' center and the photovoltaic system will be on 386 and will be used to
add -- supply energy to Building 126.
Before I get into the project itself, I'd like to get into a little bit of the background.
The project is before us today because the previous Commission action for the last project
at the Washington Navy Yard which was in June of 2010 noted that no future submittals at
the Washington Navy Yard will be considered until an undated master plan is submitted.
Staff, we have been working with the Navy as they have been working on their master
plan for the Navy Yard and there has been great progress and the Navy is looking to
submit the master plan to the Commission within, excuse me, by the beginning of next year.
The project is a minor project on an existing building.
There are no employees included in the design and there is no interior space.
In addition, this is a renewable energy source that's being proposed and for these reasons,
the Executive Director is recommending that the Commission approve the project at the
Navy Yard and now, I'll get into the actual design.
The Washington Navy Yard is located in Southeast Washington, D.C. along the Anacostia River.
To the north of the Navy Yard is M Street.
To the east is 11th Street and then to the west is The Yards Development.
You'll see Building 386 here in the eastern portion of the site as well as Building 126
there.
Building 386 is a seven-level parking garage that exists at the Navy Yard.
The photovoltaic system will be placed on the top level of that parking garage.
The garage was built in 1987.
Building 126 is again the again the main visitors' center and it is just south of the parking
garage.
That building, 126, was built in 1939 originally as a laundry.
I've also highlighted this building here which is actually Building 405 and the reason that
I highlighted it was because this was the last project that was -- the site of the last
project at the Navy Yard that the Commission took an action on which again was June of
last year and at that time, the Commission stated no further projects until the master
plan, an updated master plan, is submitted.
The project itself -- and I should also add that the last master plan approved by the
Commission at the Navy Yard was in 1990, a little over 20 years ago.
The project itself is highlighted in green in the middle of the slide of this image.
The photovoltaic system here is 3,000 square feet.
It is 48 solar panels and it will be installed on a metal-framed canopy that will be situated
on the down ramp of the parking garage, the top level of the parking garage.
The PV system will be connected to the Building 126 via underground utility lines.
And I also wanted to just make you aware that a future submission is for wind turbines.
The location is being discussed currently, but the wind turbines and the PV system will
be providing energy to the Building 126 as part of a larger energy-demonstration project
for the building.
There's some conservation elements as well for Building 126.
Staff analysis, staff as I said earlier has worked with the Navy in understanding the
master plan update.
We've had four meetings since October of last year.
We've had three additional meetings on transportation concerns both at the Navy Yard as well as
looking at naval installations in the region.
The update is -- the master plan itself is more than 50 percent complete and it will
be submitted in either January or February of 2012.
Again, this is a project that does not include any personnel.
It is a fairly small project on an existing building and it is a project that needs to be -- excuse
me.
It's a minor project for the site.
For historic preservation, this project is on an existing building again built in 1987.
The Washington Navy Yard does have an historic district, but that district -- these two buildings,
386 and 126, are not in that historic district.
The D.C. State Historic Preservation Office has said that this project was not going to
be visible.
Therefore, it is no adverse effect on historic resources.
And finally, it is a renewable energy project and this aligns well with the Executive Order
13514 as well as the Energy Independence and Security Act.
And for these reasons, we see this project as a minor one on the installation and, therefore,
the Executive Director recommends that the Commission approve the preliminary and final
building plans for the installation of a 48-panel photovoltaic system on the top level of Building
386 and note that, although recent Commission action for a project at the Navy Yard stated
that no future submittals at the Navy Yard will be consideration until an updated master
plan is submitted, that this proposal is a minor one that does not increase the population
of the installation, does not include any interior space, will have no adverse effect
on historic resources and is comprised of elements that reduce the installation's energy
consumption.
And with that
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: As well as the impact on parking ratios.
MR. HART: And I would like to conclude my presentation.
CHAIR BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Hart.
Are there questions or discussion on this?
Ms. Wright.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: I have a process question for my own edification.
Is this just not on the consent calendar because of the Commission's previous remarks about
a master plan?
MR. HART: That's correct.
That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Is that it?
MR. HART: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay.
That's what I thought.
CHAIR BRYANT: Mr. Hart.
COMMISSIONER HART: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
My company does a lot of work with the Navy.
So, in this case, I will recuse myself on this item.
CHAIR BRYANT: Yes, sir.
Further discussion or questions?
Ms. Tregoning.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Notwithstanding, you know, our issue about the master plan which
I know is still alive and I hope it has prompted the Navy to be working more closely to it,
I think it's a great project.
I'm delighted to see the Navy doing this and, in fact, I know the Department of Defense
in general is looking very hard at all kinds of alternative and renewable energy sources,
you know, for their own security and for the safety of their enlisted personnel.
I think it's a great.
I can't - and I hope that they would be willing to share the results.
They call this a pilot.
A demonstration project.
I think the Commission would love to hear at some point in the future the results of
their demonstration and see if we could learn lessons that could be applied to other Federal
buildings.
Thank you.
CHAIR BRYANT: On that, you know, a power plant of 500 megawatts powers X thousands of homes.
It's kind of a layman's way of describing it.
Is there a layman's way of describing what 28 kilowatts -- what kind of impact it has
off the top of your head?
MR. HART: I mean it's -- well, it needs to be looked at kilowatts per hour and I'm actually
trying to get some additional information.
It doesn't say that in the -- in the report.
It does say 28 -- it will produce 28, I'm sorry, 22.
8 kilowatts of power.
There is a -- you need to look at what that is over time and that information we don't
have, but
CHAIR BRYANT: I was just curious.
MR. HART: -- it is -- it's just a capacity to be able to -- this is how much it can produce
at one point.
CHAIR BRYANT: Sure.
MR. HART: Over time, it'll be much, you know, larger amount.
It's just - it is -- they're really looking for this along with the -- the wind turbines
to actually produce the energy for the Building 128 and it -- and
CHAIR BRYANT: For the building itself.
MR. HART: For the building itself and they're looking to reduce the amount of -- basically,
do energy conservation in concert with producing, you know, energy so that they can get that
-- the energy requirements for the building.
CHAIR BRYANT: Yes, little micro-grid.
COMMISSIONER MAY: I would just say the -- in the District's program for installing -- for
providing incentives for photovoltaics on people's roofs, common systems are three to
eight kilowatt hours and they don't provide enough energy to run the whole household.
MR. HART: Understood.
COMMISSIONER MAY: So, this is a pretty small --MR. HART: Right.
COMMISSIONER MAY: -- project.
CHAIR BRYANT: Further questions?
Comments?
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Some comments.
I think Commissioner Tregoning made the comment about what evidence do we have that we have
gotten the Navy Yard's attention to upgrade their master plan and I think Mr. Hart covered
that.
There's been a series of meetings both on the master planning side as well as the TMP
side and we now have a firm delivery date of January/February time frame for the master
plan.
So, I take those as all positive signs and evidence that the Navy Yard is getting closer
and closer to being in compliance.
My question is also about the -- what do you get for 28 kilowatts?
I think the answer is -- I know what the Navy thinks that -- perhaps someone could address
that.
What the total usage of Building 126 is that this project is intended to support and I
think that might be a moving target.
Because reading the staff report, it looks like this is one of several phases of work.
There's previously been work to replace windows and solar tubes and improve the wall insulation.
So, the consumption and the demand in 126 is coming down as the capacity is growing
to provide and maybe perhaps make this building self-sustaining.
Geothermal is coming.
Wind turbines are being considered for the final phase.
So, is the Navy prepared to say that 28 -- at the current rate this will take care of 50
percent of the power requirements for Building 126 or whatever the right number is?
MR. MONTGOMERY: Hello.
I'm Kevin Montgomery.
I'm representing Naval Facility Engineering Command Washington, NFEC Washington.
I'm not an energy expert.
I'll start out by saying that.
But, it's my understanding the way it's been explained to me that the total energy generated
from these projects, it's a three-phase project, will fully allow the visitors' center to operate.
It'll be totally off the grid.
And it is our main visitors' center at the Washington Navy Yard.
It's a very busy place in the mornings as you can imagine and it is open Monday through
-- it's open weekly for visitors, tourists who also visit the Navy Yard.
So. CHAIR BRYANT: Great. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: My final comment would be just to commend the Navy on a couple of
things.
One on the submission of this energy efficiency project as well as the progress on both the
TMP and the master planning efforts.
So, headed in the right direction at the right speed.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I have one question.
It may be not related to this project, but given the new space and the new presence of
the Navy at Bolling, the former Bolling Air Force Base, is there going to be any new plans,
new direction or can you comment on that now?
Are you pretty tight there at the Navy Yard now?
MR. MONTGOMERY: At this time, I'm not aware of any upcoming energy projects at Joint Base
Anacostia Bolling.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I ask because it impacts on my community and I wanted to know whether
they are looking at doing more.
MR. MONTGOMERY: As we said -- as Carlton said earlier, this is a demonstration project.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.
MR. MONTGOMERY: So, I think we're really trying to determine how effective something like
this can be.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I understand that part of it, but I'm just broader than that.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
CHAIR BRYANT: Is there a motion on the EDR as before you?
Mr. Hart, is there a motion on the -- you're abstaining.
COMMISSIONER HART: I'm abstaining.
CHAIR BRYANT: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So moved.
CHAIR BRYANT: It's been moved and seconded.
There is a second I presume somewhere.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Second.
CHAIR BRYANT: It's been moved and seconded.
All in favor of the project -- the EDR say aye.
(Ayes.)
CHAIR BRYANT: Opposed no.
It has passed and with that, is there anything else to come before the Commission?
Hearing none, that concludes today's Commission meeting which I think is the shortest we've
had in quite some time.
Great.