Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Good afternoon.
Let's bring the meeting to order.
We do have a quorum.
This is the National Capital Planning Commission's December 1, 2011 meeting.
If you would, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you.
For all in attendance I would remind you that these proceedings are being livestreamed.
We do have a quorum and so with the meeting in order we'll proceed without objection according
to the agenda that's been advertised.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 1 is the Report of the Chairman.
I don't really have a report other than to say welcome to Council Member Tommy Wells
who is Council Chairman Brown's first alternate.
Councilman Wells, welcome.
We are very happy that you're here.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 2 is Report of the Executive Director.
Mr. Acosta.
MR. ACOSTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Happy Holidays to all and welcome to Councilman Walls to NCPC.
There are just a few announcements I would like to make that would be of general interest
to the public.
First of all, on Monday, December 5th NCPC will be hosting its very first live video
Q&A with landscape architect Walter Hood, principal of Hood Design in Oakland, California.
You may remember Mr. Hood was a finalist in the President's Park South design competition
and he will discuss in the livestream issues related to public spaces, parks, and open
space.
A live chat will occur at 12:00 to 12:30 p.m. and can be accessed on NCPC's home page.
On Tuesday, December 6, at 12:30 p.m. Art Rodgers, Senior Housing Planner at the D.C.
Office of Planning, will present a new report done by the Office of Planning and the Center
for Neighborhood Technology that will provide a clear picture of regional housing and transportation
affordability issues and its implications for the region.
This presentation will be held at NCPC's commission chambers.
Also, on Wednesday, January 11, at 7:00 p.m. at the National Archives the first NCPC speaker
series event of 2012 will focus on Revolutionary Parks and the Future of Public Spaces.
Panel discussions will examine parks and public spaces and how they can survive in today's
evolving world while successfully responding to diverse and often competing array of future
needs.
Our co sponsor will include the Trust of the National Mall, the City Parks and Alliance,
and National Archives.
Also, this program is a companion event to the trust sponsored national mall design competition
which seeks to redesign three spaces on the National Mall.
That should be a very interesting event.
Finally, just on a personnel note, I would like to also announce, and I think many of
you know, that David Levy has left as Director of Urban Design and Plan Review.
David began his tenure in NCPC in June 2001 as the agency's transportation planner and
he's done that for over 10 years.
He has represented the agency on the District's Board of Zoning Adjustment, managed the design
consultation for many of the most complex projects in the agency in terms of plan review.
He also served for the last four years as the Director of Urban Design and Plan Review
Division.
He has served the Commission with incredible distinction and dedication over the past 10
years.
I know that you'll join me wishing him well as he embarks on the next phases of his career.
Shane Dettman has been appointed Acting Director of Urban Design and Plan Review until further
notice.
Congratulations to Shane.
That concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Acosta.
Again, David Levy has served us well for a decade and we do wish him well.
We are happy that Shane Dettman is stepping into that role.
We know that he will do a great job.
Any questions for Mr. Acosta?
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Hearing none, Agenda Item No. 3 is Legislative Update.
Ms. Schuyler.
MS. SCHUYLER: I'll pass for today, sir.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 4 is the Consent Calendar.
We have six items on the Consent Calendar and they are: 4A is the Electric Generating
Equipment at Fort McNair.
4B is an addition to Building 49 at St. Elizabeth's West Campus.
4C, Amendments to the Square 254 Guidelines.
4D is the Maryland State Highway Administration Intersection Improvements Wisconsin Avenue
and Cedar Lane at the National Institutes of Health.
4E is the Calder Sculpture Relocation and Rehabilitation at the National Museum of American
History.
4F is the Planned Unit Development Modification at Square 50.
Were there any questions on any item on the Consent Calendar?
Hearing none, is there a motion to adopt the Consent COMMISSIONER HART: So moved.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: It's been moved and seconded.
All in favor say aye.
All: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no.
Consent Calendar is adopted.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 5A is the Intelligence Community Campus Master Plan
in Bethesda.
We have Mr. Hinkle here.
MR. HINKLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make sure the Commission knows as well as the public that there is a revised
staff report.
That revised staff report is also available up at the front desk.
I know we have a number of people here to speak about that so I want to make sure they
have a copy of that.
So, to begin, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a Master Plan for the Intelligence
Community Campus in Bethesda.
The site is located just northwest of Washington, D.C. just past the boundary.
Just to give you some orientation, of course, this is the Potomac River.
MacArthur Boulevard runs approximately in this location.
Sangamore Road, which fronts the site, run just to the east.
Then you have Clara Barton Parkway running along the river in this direction.
The site is surrounded primarily by single family residential areas.
In particular up here and in this area here.
There is also some multi family units and townhomes in this area as well as in this
area and a shopping center immediately across the street from the site.
The site is the former headquarters of the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.
It's actually been a federal facility since 1945.
It was originally an expansion site for the Army Map Service which was established just
south of the south in this location in 1942.
The site is really significant for its leadership role in military mapping, especially during
World War II.
Also it's important in terms of how it has helped to enhance mapping technologies over
the last number of years.
This is just another view of the site to give you more of a perspective of its environment.
Sangamore Road is running across the photograph.
This is south and north.
This site overlooks, again, the Potomac River on that side.
Multi family here and then the shopping center here.
The site is primarily five major structures; Emory, Erskine, Abert, Roberdeau, and Maury
Halls.
Then, as you can see, the site consist of quite a bit of surface parking.
This is just to give you another perspective of the site.
This is a couple of views off of Sangamore Road.
The top two are towards the north of the site.
You're looking south towards the main gate here, looking north towards the main gate
in this location.
Sentinel Drive, actually, forms an intersection right across the street here.
This is the gate down towards the southern side of the site where there is a large oval
lawn.
This is the backside of the site.
This photograph came from the environmental assessment but it shows the site from MacArthur
Boulevard during the wintertime.
While I couldn't get the exact perspective, this is actually the same tree, but you can
see the site during the summertime when there is a lot of foliage.
It's a lot different in terms of your availability to view the site from MacArthur Boulevard.
So the project really includes a complete redevelopment of the entire site.
This is for Defense Intelligence Agency activities.
The project goals really are to create a modern and mission capable facility to maximize some
existing space, to meet anti terrorism enforced protection requirements, as well as to improve
the environmental impacts of the site.
There is no change in the land area that's being proposed.
The site has been 39 acres and will be 39 acres.
There is no change in the peak population.
The site is being designed for 3,000 employees and the site historically has had approximately
3,000 employees.
To get into some of the details of the redevelopment project, it's really about the main structure.
What I mean by the main structure is what will be constructed with the existing buildings.
The program includes the demolition of two of these buildings; Abert Hall which is right
in this location, as well as Emory Hall down to the south of the site.
Then the construction of what is called the new infill building as well as the centrum.
This is the location of the new infill building.
Then we have the centrum here.
The centrum is essentially a piece of structure that will connect all the other elements.
In total there is about 140,000 square feet being proposed in addition to what exist.
Most of this will be located in the centrum structure, or can be attributed to the centrum
structure.
In addition to this construction, what is being included in this plan is to unify the
facades of the buildings.
Right now they are primarily brick but the proposal is to do some sort of glass facade
and that is still being worked out in the design details.
In terms of parking, one of the main actions that will be done in this redevelopment project
is the removal of most of the surface parking.
As you can see, the site is significantly covered both to the south as well as the north
and east.
With that removal is the construction of a garage and visitor's lot.
This in the illustration is the garage as well as the visitor's lot.
I forgot to mention within this presentation I have a number of illustrations but I just
want to stress that these are really at the conceptual level at this point.
Further design is being done and you'll see that further as the phases progress and they
are brought to the Commission.
In essence, there are about 1,800 existing parking spaces.
What is being proposed is 2,240 so it's really an increase of 440 spaces on the site.
While this sounds like a lot, the site did meet the Commission's or the Comprehensive
Plan's recommended parking ratio for facilities within the environments that are not adjacent
to Metrorail.
With this additional number of parking spaces it will still meet that ratio in terms of
the employee parking.
How that parking is broken down there are 2,000 employee parking spaces identified as
well as another 240 for fleet and visitor and carpool and vanpool uses.
In terms of other facilities on the site, there is also a new Visitor Control Center,
as well as a new gate being proposed.
Currently the gates and visitor control is located in this spot that will be demolished.
The Visitor Control Center, as well as he regular gate are being relocated to those
locations.
In addition, there is also a pedestrian gate being proposed adjacent to Sangamore Road.
The idea is to incorporate this gate into an existing bus stop but it does allow employees
to walk across the street and utilize the services in the adjacent shopping center.
In addition, there will be some reconfiguration of some of the other access roads and emergency
and maintenance roads throughout the facility.
In terms of infrastructure and landscaping, as you can see through the illustrations,
there is quite a significant change in terms of the pervious surfaces that will be located
on the site.
The redevelopment of the project proposes to reduce the impervious surface by about
10 acres which is pretty significant.
That's 50 percent.
Primarily that is, of course, a result of the removal of the parking spaces and the
inclusion of the parking garage.
In addition, there will be some utility infrastructure updating on the site.
One of the considerations guiding the design of the site is that it is an historic district.
That includes a number of the buildings as well as the flag pole and what is called the
globe memorial in this area.
The activity or the redevelopment to the site was determined to be an adverse affect, in
particular because of the demolition of Emory and Abert Halls.
But also the removal of the facade of Erskine Hall.
This is an older photograph, I think, from the late '40s but that facade will be removed.
There is an MOA between the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Maryland SHPO.
That includes retaining the remainder of the halls, updating the period of significance
to include the period from World War II up to today and then preserving the flagpole
and Globe memorial setting which means preserving this area where the oval is.
The plan is to do the construction in two phases.
The Army Corps is looking to begin as quickly as possible on the north campus Phase 1 which
includes the parking facility, the vehicle inspection station, the visitor's control
center, as well as the access road.
Phase 2 would follow and with the hopes of completing this project approximately at the
end of 2016.
We should be seeing Phase 1 relatively soon in the future.
So in terms of analyzing the proposal, the plan does meet a number of comprehensive plan
goals.
In particular, it does utilize and modernize some available federally owned property.
It is consistent with some of the local land use policies.
I just wanted to point out one and that is within the Bethesda Chevy Chase Master Plan
where that plan calls for the maintenance of a federal activity at the site.
Then it also supports some local businesses.
Since the NGA has moved out, my understanding is the shopping center across the street is
struggling.
Actually in speaking with one of the managers there they have expressed to me that they
can't wait for additional employees to step into the site.
In addition, the plan meets a number of agency program goals.
It serves their operational needs in terms of providing a collaborative environment.
It certainly meets their security requirements.
It also provides for some flexibility and information technology as that advances.
It also improves the environmental impacts of the site and it improves the site's face
to the community.
This is in terms of architecture and how the structures sit in the setting.
But we do recognize that what is being proposed is pretty significant in terms of the architecture.
Certainly what needs to continue is the dialogue that Army Corps is having with the community
and the county to ensure that what is proposed in terms of the architecture and the landscaping
does actually fit within its environment.
Further, the plan also significantly improves the overall environmental impacts of the site.
There will be a removal of approximately three acres of lawn, as well as some removal of
the wooded areas, particularly in this area where the parking garage is being proposed.
But with that there is an addition of 10 acres, as I mentioned, of pervious surface which
really will result in improved stormwater management at the site as well as an improved
visual presence, especially upon Sangamore Road.
The Army is working on a stormwater management plan and will complete that plan in accordance
with state and county requirements.
They will also complete a forest conservation plan based on the requirements.
As we'll see because we have representatives in the Corps here today to talk a little bit
further but they have been continuing discussions on the location of the garage in terms of
how it's sited.
Then well, what I'll say is they are working on figuring out how not to impact that tree
so much.
One other important piece of information is that there is some concern about how the site
is viewed from the National Park Service property.
Up top you do see a view across the Potomac River towards the site.
This is Emory Hall.
One of the commitments the Army Corps has made is not to construct anything higher than
Emory Hall.
The proposed parking garage is actually being studied to be significantly lower than that.
The issue is that where it's located it may impact some of the trees that are actually
providing some blockage of the view towards the site so that is still being analyzed.
We can get into more detail on that with the Army but, in particular, when we see the Phase
1 we could really take a good look at that.
I just wanted to mention this is a consideration.
It is an important consideration.
The preservation of the Potomac Palisades is an important goal in both our comprehensive
plan as well as the Bethesda Chevy Chase Master Plan so that is something that we are looking
out for.
Within that I just wanted to note that the Army has been in discussions with the National
Park Service and has committed to work with them and provide them their landscape plans
as those are being developed.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: One quick question.
You said Emory or Erskine?
MR. HINKLE: I'm sorry.
Erskine.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay.
MR. HINKLE: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Hinkle, can you go back to the previous slide?
I know this site has had a history of stormwater issues.
Can you point on that graphic where some of the most significant stormwater challenges
have been?
Some of the damage that's been done?
MR. HINKLE: My understanding and I'm not the expert on this, I know we have a number of
neighbors who will come up and speak to this in a better fashion than I can.
My understanding is there is a stream that runs towards here, but there is also significant
runoff coming in this way.
My understanding is this is where most of the degradation to the National Park Service
property is.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Okay.
Thank you.
MR. HINKLE: I do want to point out, and the Army will speak to this further that, as I
mentioned, there have been continuing discussions with the county as well as the community to
try to figure out how to place a garage without impacting so much the forested area.
This is one scheme and they will talk to you further about this because this is relatively
recent and I'm not all that versed in it.
As you can see, what's been shown here is this is the general location that's proposed
in the Master Plan and what is being reviewed right now is a shift, what you see outlined
in purple here.
That would remove the impacts to some of the forested area on this site.
We'll get into more details on that later.
Just to wrap up, there is a transportation management plan that was completed and associated
with this Master Plan.
The difficulty with the site is that there is extremely limited transit to the area.
The Army is making strides in developing objectives to really encourage employees not to drive.
However, it's a difficult location.
The TMP does include some objectives to promote alternative modes of transportation including
transit and carpools and vanpools.
They are looking at providing bicycle facilities.
They are looking at providing improved pedestrian facilities on the site.
They are also looking at perhaps maybe a shuttle service to one of the metro stations along
the Red Line that you see here.
Then the site I'll just point out is adjacent to the C&O trail, as well as the Capital Crescent
trail that runs along here.
There are some opportunities to improve those connections to the site as well.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: What did you say the distance was to the Friendship Heights Metro?
MR. HINKLE: You know, I don't know.
I believe it's just a couple of miles.
Finally, in terms of the Master Plan what was proposed on an entry drive was to shift
it north.
This top picture, of course, is the existing conditions.
What occurs now is there is a main entrance across from Sentinel Drive in this location.
This is Sangamore Road.
You come in and the guard stops you here.
This is the main gate.
If you are a visitor you can park in this area and walk through the Visitor Control
Center in this location.
One of the issues historically has been a lot of queuing on the streets is my understanding.
One of the objectives was to get that queuing onto the site and off of Sangamore Road.
Thus, the development of the access roadway to the north of this site.
What is being proposed here is a gate in this location.
The visitor's control center would be in this location.
Visitor parking here.
Of course, a new intersection at Sangamore Road.
This is now being reevaluated based on some further discussions with the county as well
as the neighborhood so I would like to invite the Corps up in a few minutes to talk a little
bit more about that concept.
I just wanted to flash it up in front of you now.
Essentially what is being looked at now is perhaps tying it back so you put the main
entrance back to where it is right now so you form a four way intersection with Sentinel
Drive and then swing it around and then maintain the gate in this location at the north.
With that I just want to stress that we see this redevelopment of the site as a real positive.
I think there's a lot of positive elements to this.
Again, reusing an existing facility.
It is certainly reducing the amount of impervious surface.
There's a lot of positives in this.
But there are some outstanding issues and we recognize this.
That is why we have a revised recommendation in front of the Commission today.
That recommendation essentially, and I'll read it, is, "To approve the Master Plan for
the Intelligence Community Campus for use by the Commission as a guide for future reviews
of individual site and building projects at the installation, but with the exception that
the Commission will defer action on the siting, design, and alignment of the proposed parking
garage and access road until the applicant concludes coordination with the National Park
Service, Montgomery County, as well as the community on outstanding issues and finalizes
its plans for these elements of the project.
We also suggest commending the applicant for proposing a development plan that reuses and
modernizes an existing but physically outdated federally owned facility and for significantly
increasing the pervious landscaped areas at the installation.
Then further to note that to minimize the disturbance of the forested steep slopes near
the proposed parking structure and to provide sufficient trees, shrubs, and other landscaping
elements to screen views of the parking structure from the adjacent Sangamore local park and
submit landscape design plans for each project phrase for review by the National Park Service
to ensure compatibility with the adjacent National Park.
The applicant has agreed to submit building and landscape design plans for each project
phase for review by the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission to ensure
compatibility of the design with the community character and amassing articulation and materials
buildings.
Landscape design, screening of views from the residential property to the south and
street design which is subject to approval by the County Department of Transportation.
The applicant has also agreed to work with the appropriate county, state, and federal
agencies, as well as the Washington Metropolitan Area transit authority to enhance adjacent
public transit, which is bus service, and to improve off road bikeway connections to
the site and from existing regional trails." That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chairman.
At this point if you could indulge me, I think it would be helpful to invite the Corps up
and to discuss a little bit further what conversations have been occurring and where they are at
in terms of the parking garage and the access road.
That might address some of the Commission's questions as we move forward.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Hinkle.
That's a very good recommendation because there has been significant ongoing discussions.
Before we engage in too much Q&A let's hear from the Corps.
Welcome.
MR. OLSON: My name is Jared Olson with the Baltimore District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Thank you for this opportunity to come and present before the Commission.
We do want to be express our thanks for the support that we received from your staff.
Mr. Hinkle particularly has been very helpful.
We felt that we've had a very good collaborative relationship in trying to incorporate the
bigger concerns and issues or desires into our plan as we've gone forward.
Just for some perspective, we issued a Notice of Intent for an environmental assessment
November 2010.
In June the draft EA was published and in September the FONSI signed.
From that you can perhaps judge that this is a fairly aggressive schedule that we are
moving on.
We awarded the Phase 1 design build contract to Clark Construction in September.
That was largely driven by the appropriations cycle that we are in.
We are presently in design for Phase 1 which, again, was the northern end of the campus
that Mr. Hinkle showed earlier.
In October we engaged with the public directly and received a lot of feedback.
In response to that feedback we have made adjustments from our initial concepts which
you see here basically to the extent that the color does show up.
The yellow shading areas were what was originally presented in the EA and were the basis for
the concept design.
The principal issues were really about the traffic, access to the site, and traffic impacts
along Sangamore, the location of the parking garage, and the impact on viewshed and forested
areas.
And then the stormwater management issue that was asked about earlier.
Those were the three significant take aways that we garnered from the 5 October engagement
that we had.
With that, the first issue I would just like to address, and Mr. Hinkle already touched
on it, was the relocation.
Our analysis initially showed that if you remove the stop sign at the intersection of
Sentinel Road, which is the T coming in here and Sangamore, the traffic flow and service
along Sangamore would actually be improved during peak traffic periods.
However, in coordination with the Montgomery County Department of Transportation they have
indicated that they will not remove the stop sign so, therefore, we are given a new constraint.
We redid our analysis and now our solution said basically it looks for this sort of an
arrangement.
Briefed this at the 29th November community meeting and it was fairly well received by
the public.
Similar issues with regard to traffic and larger impacts away from the site at the intersection
of Sangamore and Massachusetts, Sangamore and MacArthur.
Those are things that we are going to continue to coordinate and cooperate with Montgomery
County on as far as providing the assistance that we can as they look at and evaluate those.
Next slide, please.
Sorry.
I have all the control here.
All right.
Then you have seen this already.
Again, this shows the rotation.
Again, principal concerns with regard to forest impacts with the yellow footprint shown here
was the planned intent to remove the woods all the way up to the property boundary for
the purposes of security zone around the western perimeter of the site.
We have since revisited that and have determined that is no longer a project requirement but
the necessity for the onsite parking, which is driven for a variety of reasons, but one
of which was community feedback garnered early 2001 time frame when there was consolidation
to this facility where there was significant concern expressed about the lack of capacity
for the occupants to park onsite and push that parking out into the community both into
the shopping center and into the local streets.
That was expressed as a concern by the community at that time and we took that as an input.
The requirement for the 2,200 spaces that Mr. Hinkle referenced earlier was the design
parameter input into our development of this plan.
Next slide, please.
Oh, shoot.
Here we go again.
All right.
I'll get trained by the end of the briefing, Jeff.
I'll be good to go.
Okay?
So my apologies.
We show in this slide in purple basically the relocated parking garage.
The objective was to maintain the 2,200 spaces and we did two things.
First off, we shrunk the footprint of the garage; 36 feet along the long access and
four feet on the short access.
We reduced the actual physical footprint of the garage and then rotated it basically at
a point right about here just off of the corner so that more of the footprint fell on the
existing impervious surface.
We did that in an effort to maximize the amount of buffer that we would retain along this
sector of the property.
Again, this is Wapakoneta Road and I believe you'll hear from some of the residents who
are located right over here right across the street so they are our neighbors.
The other principal concern is the view shed and the impacts that Jeff briefly mentioned
when he showed the slide.
Particularly looking from the south north the exposure of this elevation of the garage,
or this face of the garage, is a concern that has been stated.
It is our intent as part of the garage design to include a green screen on the structure
to help soften the view but it will still be seen.
The estimate that we have right now based on our analysis of the tree height in this
area of the trees that will remain and the elevations of the garage is approximately
one to two levels of the garage would be above the trees on that southern exposure.
We believe that actually the concealment will pretty much remain in effect here, that the
tree height will be higher than this corner of the garage.
However, you will be able to see through the trees and see a structure much like you can
right now from MacArthur which is located right here when you look up along the back
of the existing structures that are presently there.
The other aspects COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Can I ask you a question really fast?
What's the grade change from the northern most point on the surface lot and to the southern
most point of the garage?
MR. OLSON: To here?
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes.
MR. OLSON: Two levels so the intent is COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: No, the grade change.
What is the drop in feet?
MR. OLSON: Two levels would be about 22 feet.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay.
MR. OLSON: About 22 feet.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Wow.
MR. OLSON: It is a fairly steep dropoff.
This parking lot is actually built on fill for the most part and there is actually a
fairly steep slope in this area and then in here so the natural grade it transitions pretty
quickly to the natural grade.
It is, based on my observations, probably a good eight to 10 foot of fill that are probably
above grade right there in that area.
The other constraints that impact the garage are the setback requirements that we have
from the corner of Maury Hall to this outlet on the site of the garage.
We have 150 foot setback that we are required to maintain.
The geometry of the vehicle inspection station and the distance to the final denial barrier,
which is located here, is a fixed distance and a security requirement.
Basically it's about the guards in the event that someone goes through the security inspection
facility unauthorized that they have the reaction time to basically activate a denial barrier.
We have then the issue of the queuing which Mr. Hinkle did reference which is a desire
to maintain as much queuing onsite as possible in order to maintain traffic flow in the morning
rush along Sangamore.
We have the necessity to basically have a certain amount of straight line distance coming
into the approach of the vehicle inspection facility.
The geometry as you see this in this sketch really from this point down to Sangamore and
the necessity to bring in, again, large wheel based vehicles for deliveries, trucks, pretty
much we've optimized all we can with this arrangement coming through the security inspection
facility.
Then that really then governs how far we can bring this corner of the structure in.
The viewshed impacts we talked a little bit about already.
Obviously the big advantage will be then the replacement of this impervious surface with
landscape.
Obviously the tradeoff and the concern is about the amount of tree removal that will
have to occur back here.
In addition to that, which is associated with the finished structure of the garage and the
security fence, there is a requirement for erosion and sediment control structure and
it's tentatively planned for this corner of the garage because that is the low point off
of the site right now.
That's where we feel we can best manage the stormwater runoff during construction.
However, that would be restored and reforested at the conclusion of the site.
The good advantages and the fact that what we've listened to with regard to the community
as we have pulled the garage much more onto the already developed surface.
We cannot completely eliminate some removal of trees on the site.
There will still be some trees.
Mr. Hinkle referenced three acres.
That was actually the maximum extent.
If we go back to the original clearing all the way to the perimeter that was three acres
so we will be significantly less than three acres.
Finally, our final constraint is we are on a fixed budget.
We do have an awarded design build contract that we have a fixed budget for that.
We do have a program that we are working against with regard to the funds that have been authorized
for this project.
We feel we have arrived at what we think is the best compromise, if you will, or optimization
given all the constraints that we have for this site.
COMMISSIONER HART: I have a question about stormwater management.
MR. OLSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HART: Does the stormwater management plan meet what a commercial developer would
have to comply with in the State of Maryland under the current stormwater management rights?
MR. OLSON: The plans that we will redevelop this site according to will be issued and
will be in compliance with the MD requirements.
They will issue permits and we'll have to redevelop the site.
COMMISSIONER HART: The same as a commercial development?
MR. OLSON: That is beyond my level of knowledge as to whether there is a different standard
or not.
COMMISSIONER HART: I don't think there should be a different standard.
Although it's a federal agency, I think that we should be meeting the highest requirements
and in the State of Maryland they are rather severe.
I don't think a single point of stormwater management would meet that requirement.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Question if I may, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Commissioner Tregoning.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: So who is queuing in that long queue?
You mentioned trucks who are making deliveries but MR. OLSON: During the peak morning rush
the occupants are coming onto the site.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: The employees?
MR. OLSON: Employees.
Correct.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Okay.
So I have a question.
What is the distance between the garage and the nearest occupied point of the building?
Maybe that would be Maury Hall.
MR. OLSON: It is 150 feet from this corner just outside this intersection.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: What is otherwise your standoff distance?
MR. OLSON: 150 feet.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Okay.
Why don't we make the garage outside the security perimeter?
Why do we have an interest in securing cars?
That way anybody could come into the garage.
You still have the standoff distance.
Nobody needs to queue.
You just park and the security is for the people.
Maybe you need to have some secure distance or some security facility for the trucks that
are going to be coming into your facility and getting closer than 150 feet.
If you could put the garage outside the security perimeter, then you wouldn't need all that
queuing space.
You could use the existing relatively flat topography of the land.
The back of the site that is in that steep slope, that is where you need the most stormwater
protection.
That could become your stormwater protection and you would end up having a much smaller
footprint, a much smaller impact.
Just a thought.
MR. OLSON: Based on facility criteria that we are familiar with, this arrangement is
typically what we design so, I mean, and when we do our facility organization.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Why would cars be within the security perimeter?
What's our interest in securing to a level five the private vehicles of our employees
and contractors?
I mean, you're not securing if they want to park off site you're not securing those vehicles.
Right?
You don't have somebody guarding those or checking those.
MR. OLSON: No. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I just think that's a I just think that's I'm not
trying to pick on you.
I think that is sort of a bizarre policy for the federal government and we shouldn't be
protecting the cars.
Certainly in a lot of other projects that we've seen we try to put the garage outside
the security barrier.
MR. OLSON: There are also some constraints with regard then to the setbacks for all points
off of the buildings here so that was a consideration.
We did evaluate the possibility of trying to orient the garage in here and given the
size and the constraints that we had with regard to the number of parking spaces that
we are trying to achieve, this was deemed to be the best location.
Further, from a viewshed impact along Sangamore and the community here, we were trying to
address how this facility blends in.
Mr. Hinkle showed the current site conditions with a lot of asphalt, lot of large brick
buildings, and chain link fence.
What we are trying to do is definitely alter that view along Sangamore here as well.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: You might be able to make it more attractive and put an attractive
front face on the garage but where you need the infiltration protection is exactly where
you're putting the garage.
Like I say, it's got to be more costly because of the queuing and all this other stuff to
decide to protect employee's vehicles when you have the standoff distance.
I'll leave it at that but I'm concerned.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Let me revisit an issue that keeps coming up on stormwater.
Can you give me a bit more of the history maybe Mr. Hinkle.
I'm not sure which a bit more of the history of the stormwater challenges on that site
and the degradation that has happened?
I'm sure that we are moving 10 acres of impervious surface to pervious is going to do a great
deal to help that.
Why has there been so much stormwater damage in the past?
Have you had ill designed or failing BMPs or what?
MR. OLSON: I really can't CHAIRMAN BRYANT: And why has it gone on so long?
MR. OLSON: I can't really comment on that as we are not the owner or the operator of
the facility.
I am aware that the ravine that's got some pretty significant damage is really more off
to the southwest corner here at Erskine Hall.
In the redevelopment of the site, I mean, we would look to address the source problem
of the outfall, the stormwater runoff, to make sure that it does comply with MDE requirements.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Well, I hope so.
The EDR is written.
I don't see where stormwater commitments are specifically called out so that's why I was
kind of curious.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So you have a design build contract with Clark that you began in
September for the garage?
MR. OLSON: For the Phase 1 improvements which include the garage, the Visitor Control Center,
the vehicle inspection station, and this access road geometry that you see shown here.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: And where are you in the process?
MR. OLSON: We are basically COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Just percentage wise.
MR. OLSON: The next submission that will come before the Commission will be the 35 percent
design so it will be site plans and to the extent that we can prepare some renderings
that would show visible or the elevations and things like that.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes, because I'm sure that are we going to hear from some neighbors,
I guess?
MR. OLSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Because it's hard to get some idea what the elevations are looking
like.
I mean, I know you're not there yet but one can conjecture a certain amount from a 22
foot grade change.
Right?
MR. OLSON: It's a six level parking garage.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes.
Six levels on the north end.
MR. OLSON: So two total across the whole structure.
Two levels below grade generally speaking here.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes.
MR. OLSON: A level at grade and three levels above grade.
In a rough estimation approximately 40 foot COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thirty five feet.
MR. OLSON: above the current grade when you factor in the stairwell towers.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Right.
So it's not exactly fair to say that looking at a surface parking lot if you're in a residential
dwelling on the north side is not preferable.
Who wants to look at a parking lot?
But, at least, you can see over the parking lot.
Can you this drawing on page 10, this illustrated perspective, it's from what I think is the
Sangamore looking west.
I'm not really sure.
This is your best guess right now.
MR. OLSON: If that is from the concept design MR. HINKLE: It's from the site development.
MR. OLSON: Right.
That is all prior to these adjustments made with the rotation and the shrinking of the
parking deck, as well as moving these facilities actually get moved forward toward Sangamore
and having the curved entrance.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So you are far enough along in the process to very carefully tell
us that you're on a fixed budget.
MR. OLSON: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Which means there's MR. OLSON: Which is true of all federal contracts.
Yes.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Right.
Which means that you are already telling us a suppression further into the hillside is
not possible pretty much.
MR. OLSON: We've been asked to examine that but that would basically eliminate all our
contingency for the current project we estimate which would leave us no contingency for other
unforeseen issues and then some perhaps.
We have some very rough order of magnitude estimates on what that would be but not a
precise number beyond what we provided the community which was about $2 million in additional
excavation cost to lower an additional level into the ground.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you.
MR. OLSON: And that was all based on if you don't know the geology and the impacts, that
could certainly go up but that was just an estimate.
COMMISSIONER MAY: If I could ask a question about the public engagement.
You very quickly told us or recapped the history of the project from November 2010's Notice
of Intent.
He went all the way through the signing of FONSI in September.
Then you had public engagement.
Was there any prior public engagement during the course of the EA?
MR. OLSON: Yes, but there was no I think the term I used was direct public engagement which
was a meeting but there was public notice.
The DA was available for public comment.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Was there public comment?
MR. OLSON: Yes.
We did receive public comment both at the intent notice in November and when the draft
EA was posted.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Were there further agency consultation meetings after the January meeting
that the Park Service attended?
MR. OLSON: I know we had continued negotiation engagement with the NCPC and the Montgomery
County Planning group with Margaret.
Margaret Rifkin is here.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay.
Because I'm still piecing this together because I learned about this project relatively recently,
or at least learned about it in detail relatively recently.
I don't believe that there was significant consultation between the Park Service and
the Corps of Engineers between the time of that initial meeting in January and the notification
that we had that there was a FONSI in September.
That was a very significant gap.
Normally, when we do environment assessment we have significant direct public engagement
during the writing of the EA.
We also have agency consultations when there are affected agencies in the vicinity.
That clearly did not occur here.
MR. OLSON: We did have agency consultation.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Not with the Park Service.
MR. OLSON: Okay.
Rich, can you comment on the Park Service?
You need to use a microphone.
Just tell me and tell me what it is.
When did we receive it?
Tell you what, since you are more knowledgeable on it, why don't you identify yourself and
make the remark.
MAJOR WULFF: Major Rich Wulff, also the Baltimore District Corps of Engineers.
The coordination with the Park Service occurred with respect to the EA, the notice of availability,
the EA itself.
Also with respect to the Section 106, the Maryland State Historical Trust MOA process.
The Park Service was also consulted during that process.
Most recently the C&O Canal Park superintendent was invited to participate in the public commentary
that has occurred over the past two months.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Right.
Actually there are two parts that are affected here; the C&O Canal and the George Washington
Memorial Parkway operates the Clara Barton Parkway.
MAJOR WULFF: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAY: What was the timing of the Section 106 and what was the timing of the
notice of availability of the EA?
MAJOR WULFF: The notice of availability of the EA was distributed on 12 November of '10.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Right.
MAJOR WULFF: The EA was available on 3 June.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Right.
So did you receive comment from us on the EA itself after 3 June?
MAJOR WULFF: There was no comment on the EA itself.
COMMISSIONER MAY: You know, again, there was an initial agency discussion that occurred,
I believe, in January of 2011 that both parks attended and there was no follow up on that
directly with the agency until much, much later in the process and that's the only point
I'm trying to make.
MAJOR WULFF: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: A couple of comments.
First to the staff for the good analysis.
Complements also on shooting for LEED Silver, the DOD standard for projects.
I read with interest on page 17 of the report that this is going to be a net zero facility.
How MR. OLSON: The Visitor Control Center.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: do you plan to achieve that?
MR. OLSON: The Visitor Control Center.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: VCC is MR. OLSON: Net zero.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay.
Thank you for that important clarification.
MR. OLSON: It is, yes.
Very important.
LEED Silver, though, for the whole facility, though, is the goal.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay.
Just to try to get an idea of the change in elevation of the buildings.
Three stories for the parking garage.
Centrum is five stories.
Erskine is five stories.
The new infill building which, unfortunately, requires the demolition of an existing building,
Albert Hall, is two stories.
Maury Hall that is immediately adjacent is three?
MR. OLSON: Two and a half.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Two and a half.
Okay.
On several of the perspectives that have been shown it appears that the new infill building
has a green roof.
Is that that's what is being shown.
MR. OLSON: I would just caution as far as drawing conclusions from the concept designs
that are presented with regard to Phase 2 because that is still very much in flux.
Certainly looking at incorporating what green sustainable aspects we can into that construction
but right now the design of the Centrum and the infill building are really kind of they
are really just one structure.
That is kind of the direction we're heading right now so I can't really comment on the
roof for that structure.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I don't remember the age of the Albert Hall but the age and general
condition is what is necessitating demolition as opposed to rehabbing that building at a
lesser expense than new construction?
MR. OLSON: That and the fact that the connections are basically walkways right now in between
the buildings so the idea of having a tie in facility that connects the three remaining
buildings.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Complements on your efforts to acknowledging again that this is
a presentation of a Master Plan and you are only at the conceptual phase of design but
complements on the reduction of the garage and the orientation of the garage.
Perhaps if the garage continued to migrate further north it would require less deforestation.
You could come in on the northeast corner of the garage as opposed to coming in on the
north end for your consideration.
Site access.
There was some narrative in the report about evaluation of alternate access to the site
from MacArthur as opposed to off of Sangamore, the prohibitions there, cost, significant
change in the elevations.
MR. OLSON: As well as deforestation associated with that.
And the fact that it is Park Service land.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Right.
It goes back to that communication with the Park Service.
The MOA to mitigate the changes to one of the historical elements is the exterior facade
of Erskine but part of the MOA allows for that to be removed as opposed to preserve
and extend it around the entire building envelope.
I'm trying to understand.
MR. OLSON: It's my understanding that it's really just this part of the ellipsis, the
historic nature, and perhaps the relation to the structure.
I am not aware that the skin itself is historic requiring preservation.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay.
MR. OLSON: Rich?
The skin on Erskine.
MAJOR WULFF: It's historic.
MR. OLSON: Okay.
MAJOR WULFF: Basically it has to be reinforced anyway so the skin would have to be altered
anyway.
MR. OLSON: The skin would have to be altered for ATFP requirements.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Relationship to the Dalecarlia site.
Nothing currently exist with the two NGA functions.
No relationship under this new design because we've got different agencies.
There is no overflow parking, for example, or those types of things?
MR. OLSON: Correct.
No relationship.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay.
Friendship Height Metro, you may know the answer.
How far away is it from the site?
MR. OLSON: I was told by the folks that work on site about six miles.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Six miles.
Did I hear there is a plan, though, for a shuttle?
MR. OLSON: There is a shuttle presently in effect.
Actually, another point is that this is an operational facility still at this time and
we are providing shuttle service to the Friendship Metro.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Does your new plan also move visitor parking considerably farther
away from the visitor center under this new concept MR. OLSON: That is yet to be determined.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: where previously was immediately adjacent?
MR. OLSON: That has yet to be determined.
I mean, this is really just kind of some conceptual drawings to see if we can do the geometry
for the roadway.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Truck delivery.
Where do the trucks go?
Where is there dropoff.
Where is your receiving and loading dock area?
MR. OLSON: Loading docks are generally at the back of the facility.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: At the back.
Okay.
Where is the physical plant?
MR. OLSON: I'm sorry, sir?
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Where is the physical plant?
Where do you get your utilities, your steam, hot water, chilled water, so forth?
Is that all from MR. OLSON: Currently here, the substation right here.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay.
And those will remain?
There are several drawings on staff report page 3, for example, that shows a structure
to the west and behind Erskine and that's the plant and it will remain?
MR. OLSON: Right here.
That's the current utility plant.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay.
I think that's all the questions I have.
Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you.
Mr. Wells.
COMMISSIONER WELLS: Just a couple questions.
So that I understand better in terms of your parking requirements, you tried to get the
ratio to 1.
5 for the number of employees you have.
Tell me a little bit more about your parking requirements and why they went up.
MR. OLSON: The onsite parking, 2,000 spaces for permanent employees, 200 spaces, roughly
the number that we're using for transient and fleet vehicle parking onsite.
The reason for increasing the parking from the original surface lot conditions, it was
our understanding that there was considerable parking out in the neighborhood and that was
from notes from public comment that was done as part of, I believe, an EA 2001 time frame
when there was a consolidation here at this facility under NGA.
COMMISSIONER WELLS: 2001.
That sounds like a long time ago and, if that's what it's based upon, certainly there is having
more cars coming through that area has an impact as well.
What is the closest bus service?
MR. OLSON: The bus stop is on Sangamore.
I believe 23 is the route.
COMMISSIONER WELLS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Hart.
COMMISSIONER HART: I would like to reiterate the concern that Commissioner Tregoning voiced
on having vehicles within the secure perimeter.
I know there are instances where the military has placed the vehicles outside the secure
perimeter handled personnel security coming in and delivery security separately.
I think it merits further study and it might allow you to pull that garage around to the
northern end of the site, pull it off the military crest of the hill which makes it
the most prominent position for reviews off of the Potomac and mitigate those concerns
that people are voicing about cutting down trees, stormwater management, and the views
from that parkland.
As this process moves forward, I would encourage the Army to look into that further and see
if there is some way of meeting your security requirements without becoming embroiled in
a lot of security through bringing the vehicles into the secure perimeter.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Last point, please, about the 150 foot standoff.
Acknowledge that is a UFC requirement.
However, that's without any structural reinforcement.
For example, it would be very expensive to reinforce Maury Hall.
Could we not at cheaper expense reinforce the garage and move it quite a bit closer
within budget constraints?
MR. OLSON: I don't believe so, no.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: With your indulgence, I think we should move to the public comment period.
We have six people who have signed up to speak on this.
Three are representing themselves and, as such, you will have three minutes.
Then three are representing an organization and, as such, you will have five minutes.
There is a clock and you will hear a little chirp that will remind you when you are getting
close.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: The first three to speak will be Mr. Jesse Goldman, followed by Mr.
Harry Pfohl.
Third will be Steven Salop.
Mr. Goldman, welcome.
MR. GOODMAN: Thank you very much.
It's Goodman, Jesse Goodman.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Goodman.
Sorry.
MR. GOODMAN: You know, I think we all want the best outcome.
I'm not going to read the whole statement but try to zip through it a little.
I think there is a lot of we have a lot of suggestions that can really improve this process
and actually get some of the outcomes that you are concerned about and we are concerned
about, too.
I am one of the closest, if not the closest, neighbor to the planned facility.
Although Steve Salop is speak for our association, I am the co chair of it.
I do appreciate being here.
I think it is important, and some of you alluded to this, to note that this has really been
until recently what I am characterizing as a stealth process.
In November 2010 we saw some very preliminary information about the project which largely
looked reassuring but was still concerning enough that I and others wrote sent comments
in to the Corps.
I was particularly concerned about affects on the environment such as tree loss, congestion,
etc.
I have to say these comments and those of others were included in the environmental
assessment but they truly were not dealt with in the environmental assessment which was
very disappointing.
They certainly were overrun by a finding of no significant impact.
So, finally, the Corps did come to me with the community a year later in October of this
year and that is when Phase 1 of this project, which is indeed the garage, the part there
is the most uncertainty about, was presented as a fait accompli.
Basically it was the contract has been let and the bulldozers will be there in a month.
The community was extremely surprised to see that what had been portrayed as a fairly benign
operation that would stick to the same footprint was going to result in forest loss and changes
in traffic.
On the positive side there has been a productive dialogue and discussion since then that you've
heard about.
I have to say that myself and other members of the community, and listening to you also,
we have identified a number of persistent concerns which I think if they are not addressed
will cause irreparable harm both to our community and the larger environment.
I think to accept this plan based on vague assurances of future improvements, even though
it's a Master Plan, would be a mistake.
Particularly, I don't see how it's credible to divorce review of the Master Plan from
review of Phase 1 this garage and its siting and the tree loss which, in fact, are the
key drivers for the concerns identified within the plan so I wanted to raise that.
There are three major issues that I think must be, and I think they can be, resolved
before this should be accepted by your Commission.
First, the plan even with the changes still results in repairable loss of mature trees
and forest.
What does that mean?
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Go ahead and finish your statement.
MR. GOODMAN: Okay.
The massive garage is larger than a football field, six stories high actually, four above
ground in some places.
It will cause significant loss of mature trees and habitat and what you know is an environmentally
sensitive area of the Palisades.
Environmental assessment only considered trees 32 inches and larger which followed a pattern
as sort of minimizing impacts but really ignores the fact that substantial amounts of forest
would be clear cut.
It's in the comments but I won't quote the NCPC report itself which quotes from the Bethesda
Chevy Chase Master Plan about the very special nature of this area and the need to protect
trees.
This plan is in direct contradistinction to that and contradiction.
Now, we do appreciate the changes and the collegial attitude with the Corps in the last
few weeks.
These changes result in improvement, but still cutting for the fencing, the clear space,
as you can see on there the shifting, the space over the forest that will be cut, as
well as what we just heard about two days ago, a new drainage pool, will result in an
unspecified number but clearly substantial amount of tree cutting and habitat loss.
I think it's important as you can see from here.
Those of us in this neighborhood know this is exceptional to have all this contiguous
woods.
This is an ecosystem.
We do see migratory birds, wildlife, etc.
It is the character of this area and this will affect that and erode it no doubt.
We have heard that even though the garage is moved up on the side at the top there,
there is still footings that will be dug and cause a problem.
I will try to quickly conclude given the time.
I think if you put together the loss from shifting this over into forested areas from
along the perimeter and from this pool, it's sort of three strikes against the forest.
There are three significant areas of forest loss.
I think that further steps must be considered to get rid of this tree loss and that this
really is unacceptable in such a sensitive area.
Second, I would point out that the garage is massive.
I mean, this is a massive structure, larger than a football field.
It will loom over our neighborhood.
It will affect vistas.
It is, as one of you pointed out, in the most sensitive environmental in terms of steep
runoff, etc.
It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
We think the garage could be made smaller or buried.
Third, there has been a lack of clarity and I think this is genuine confusion, I'm not
implying dishonesty, about numbers of people who will need to be on the site.
It is unclear, as Mr. Wells said, why 600 more spaces are needed.
I asked one of the Corps and they said, "We were told that more people are parking in
the community several years ago." I can say from living there for 10 years that there
is not 600 people parking in the community so either there are going to be more people
on the site, in which case we need to figure that out and deal with it, or if it's the
same number, the amount of parking space should be able to be reduced and CHAIRMAN BRYANT:
Wrap up, please.
MR. GOODMAN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Please wrap up.
MR. GOODMAN: Okay.
To close, like many in our community we support a new intelligence campus but the Master Plan
has fatal flaws and uncertainties.
It really should be resolved before even it is approved.
Without such changes I think there is going to be permanent harm both to the character
of our community, but also to this very special Potomac Palisades watershed and eco system
and forest.
This is not about not in our backyard.
We are willing to have this facility here but it has to be here in a way that is not
harmful to our community and the environment.
I pointed out that I built a new house 10 years ago and managed to do it without taking
down any trees.
I think working together we can do that.
I think we need to hit the pause button here and be sure we have this right before it goes
forward.
I can honestly say that while appreciating the interactions we've had, if that community
meeting had not taken place in October, I think all those woods there would be gone
right now.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much.
Next up is Harry Pfohl with the Glen Echo Citizens Association.
As you are representing an organization, you've got five minutes.
Please keep it to five minutes.
MR. PFOHL: In fact, I intend to yield about three minutes to Steve Salop so I'll be brief.
Thank you very much for allowing us to have the opportunity to speak here today.
I am president of the Glen Echo Heights Citizens Association.
We abut the site.
We have about 484 homes and roughly 1,300 residents.
On October 5th of 2011 we hosted a presentation by Corps of Engineers of the Master Plan for
the facility.
This was attended by about 185 residents from all the communities closely impacted by the
plan, together with representatives of Government agencies and political offices.
This was the first location in which many of the residents became aware of the Master
Plan and was the first location in which the Corps engaged in a dialogue with neighboring
communities.
The discussion subsequent to the presentation was animated, to say the least.
The principal concerns of the residents were; garage size and location.
The garage is 480 feet by 240 feet.
Overhang steeply slope mature forest.
There would be considerable deforestation due to the garage size and location.
The location of a sizable stormwater basin on steeply sloped heavily wooded terrain was
necessitated by the garage size and location.
The garage impact on the viewshed and intrusion above the Palisades treeline was an impact.
It affected the National Park Service land.
No consideration was given to the neighborhood abutting the west side of the site.
There were traffic issues and there was erosion and sediment.
On November 29th, this past Tuesday, the Corps of Engineers made a second presentation to
the affected communities which showed considerable progress.
However, major issues remain.
Most particularly the garage size and location.
The communities now have an excellent dialogue underway with the Corps of Engineers which
is greatly appreciated but there is insufficient time for us to engage with the Corps for an
optimal solution to the garage question.
The dialogue underway now should have occurred long ago.
November 19, 2010 I received an email from Ken Hartman of the county advising me that
the Corps had posted a website showing a draft Master Plan and was soliciting comments on
that Master Plan.
I sent an email to our Glen Echo Heights residents.
We have about 350 homes that I can reach by email and noted this situation.
Additionally, I invited readers to comment on our website.
December 9, 2010, I sent a letter to the Corps inviting them to speak.
I referenced the comments that we received on our website.
I invited the Corps to read them.
By the time the October 5, 2011 meeting was held the finding of no significant impact
had been approved.
While the Corps surely had proceeded in accordance with their policies, there had been no dialogue
with the community.
The concern now is that there is insufficient time to conclude reasonable optimal modifications
to the plan.
A constructive dialogue is underway and we appreciate that and we need more time to complete
it.
How ironic is it that in order to create green space on the old multi acre tarmac parking
lot a huge garage is planned which will result in substantial mature woods on a steep slope
being deforested.
Testimony from Steve Salop and David Berg will address deficiencies in the EA and the
FONSI.
We believe that it is in the interest of all of us to take a pause of sufficient length
to bring the dialogue regarding the Master Plan modifications to a conclusion and to
correct EA and FONSI deficiencies.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield my remaining time to Steve Salop.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much.
Next up is Mr. Steve Salop representing an organization.
You are still limited to five minutes.
MR. SALOP: Okay.
Do I get his CHAIRMAN BRYANT: No. You are limited to five minutes.
Thank you.
MR. SALOP: Thank you.
I think the discussion that you have all had, and the comments and the statement that I
put in and Jesse Goodman put in and Harry Pfohl put in demonstrates why approval of
the Master Plan at this point is really premature.
Fundamental aspects of the project are still in flux.
Key aspects are being reevaluated.
For every one of Jeff Hinkle's slides there was a little white box that said they are
not actually going to be following the Master Plan.
They are going to be adjusting it in some way or another.
That goes for the parking garage which is the cornerstone of the project according to
the Master Plan, stormwater management and traffic.
None of the designs none of the designs for these key components are contained in the
Master Plan that you have in front of you.
They are all add ons.
As a result, you don't have a concrete plan to approve or not to approve.
It's not clear to me what exactly you would be approving if you approved the Master Plan
today.
In addition, there are significant public participation problems with the process that
were pointed out.
The public participation has just become in October.
Right now it's very productive but, frankly, it's eight months too late.
Harry Pfohl contacted the Corps in December of 2010 and asked for a meeting.
They delayed the meeting.
They didn't want to have that meeting.
They wanted to have what he characterized as a low profile which I believe means secrecy.
They did not engage with the public until after the FONSI was issued.
I believe that probably violates the NEPA rules but it certainly does not indicate a
process that satisfies the planning process that you have in place.
There is so much that we don't know.
I am involved in this process of talking to the Corps about the changes to the plan.
There is so much we don't know.
There is so much they don't know.
They could not produce elevations for us.
Okay?
You are being asked to vote for a Master Plan but we don't even know what the elevations
are.
Frankly, you're being asked to just approve a Master Plan in which they promise that they
will do the things that should have been put in the Master Plan to begin with.
They got a little bit of engagement from Montgomery County but that was also based on the limited
and erroneous information that they gave the county.
For example, yesterday the county executive of Montgomery County basically walked back
on his support saying that he had serious concerns, whereas in November of 2010 he had
written a letter of support.
There are other problems.
I'll just go through some of them quickly in the time I have remaining.
The number of parking spaces appears to violate the NCPC parking ratio standards.
The 1 to 1.5 ratio, which is at the low end, would imply 2,000 spaces.
In fact, the Corps in the TNP from November 9th they committed to 2,000 spaces and the
said those 2,000 spaces would include fleet and visitor parking.
You have that in your package.
That's on page 9 in the Executive Director's recommendation.
However, they are now saying, and Mr. Hinkle said, there are going to be 2,240 spaces so
where did the extra 240 spaces come from?
Well, they renamed those extra spaces to be fleet and visitor parking even though they
were supposedly in the 2,000 that was committed to on November 9th.
I really don't understand how the parking ratios could properly be manipulated simply
by renaming spaces.
They have made numerous claims that this is going to be a green site but one has to say
it's just quite incongruous to say that the way in which you are going to achieve a green
site is by tearing down a forest.
Moreover, there is the question of how green it's going to be.
The Master Plan says that they are trying to maximize developable space.
They have made no commitment.
They said they have no current plans to increase development but that's not a commitment.
I believe a Master Plan should have commitments.
Finally, and it's been said numerous times, the whole Master Plan is premised on the idea
that the only view that matters is Sangamore Road, not the back not the back behind the
garage.
They basically ignored that.
They ignored the impact on the C&O Canal and the overhang in MacArthur Boulevard.
There is more deforestation here than is maybe obvious.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: You need to stay at the microphone.
We're recording.
MR. SALOP: If you look at that upper left hand corner there are going to be huge footers.
That's going to necessitate taking down trees all along the rest.
There are two stormwater facilities planned; one a temporary stormwater facility.
It's a temporary facility but they are going to have to take down mature trees down towards
MacArthur Boulevard.
While it's a temporary facility, it's going to have long term adverse impacts.
There is going to be another stormwater facility, I believe, south of the garage.
Again, more trees being taken.
Finally, one last point two last points if you'll indulge me.
They said it's going to reduce traffic.
In fact, the reason why they said it's not going to increase traffic is because they
were going to put in a four way stop.
They were going to eliminate the four way stop and put in an extra turn lane.
Both of those ideas have been eliminated.
Therefore, traffic is going to go up.
They think the traffic is going to go up by 44 percent.
No contingency to take that into account.
Where do we stand?
Well, while we appreciate the engagement, I think there has to be more.
I think by issuing the Master Plan you are going to make it harder.
We need a time out to give time for this process to continue.
What the community wants is we would like the garage downsized and buried two or more
additional levels.
We would like them to that will increase the cost of excavation $2 million a level, but
if they make the garage smaller, they will save money on the size of the footprint.
We would like them to see an enhanced shuttle program.
They say there's a shuttle but basically if you read the Master Plan and the EA carefully,
they have really said mass transit is not an option for this site.
We want them to engage in affirmative efforts to have an enhanced shuttle program so that
more employees can commute and the garage can be smaller.
We would like to see them reach a one to two ratio.
We would like to see them lease supplementary parking spaces for the surface parking at
the Safeway lot across the street.
Yes, the Safeway probably didn't like previously that people from the site were parking for
free, but I'm quite sure that if they were paid a proper price for those lease sites,
they would be happy to do it.
That would give the site that would give the occupant an incentive to move more people
into carpooling and vanpooling, more people into the shuttle program because they would
save money.
They wouldn't need to lease as many spaces.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Salop.
MR. SALOP: I would hope that is what you would do with the planning process.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much.
Up now is COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Oh,
please.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: of the folks who the citizens who were kind enough to come here
to speak.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Please.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: You heard our discussion.
Some of the things that we were talking about were how would it work if the garage was not
within the security barrier so that you wouldn't need any further standoff distance.
And what if it was moved more to the front of the site and you also wouldn't need all
that queuing because you wouldn't be protecting the cars in the garage.
I mean, obviously I'm not saying aye or nay you need to look at other issues but is that
something you would like the Corps to consider in the next generation?
MR. SALOP: That sounds like a great idea.
I mean, I'm embarrassed that we never came up with that idea in the hard work that we've
put in.
Yes, we want them to eliminate the tree cutting to eliminate the visual impact.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: And you don't mind a tall what would be an effectively taller
garage that is on Sangamore Road?
MR. SALOP: I think the people in Sangamore Road would not like that.
There would be tradeoffs between the community behind and the community in front and the
impact on the canal and MacArthur.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Okay.
MR. SALOP: But, you know, they could also put it closer to Sangamore but bury it.
We really think that burying it is the best of all possible options and potentially using
the facility at Dalecarlia for supplemental parking.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Okay.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much.
MR. SALOP: Any other questions?
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you.
MR. SALOP: Okay.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Next up is Ms. June Humbert.
She'll be followed by Mr. David Berg and then Brad Northrup and then Mr. Harry Lewis.
Ms. Humbert, as you are representing an organization you have five minutes.
MS. HUMBERT: Yes.
I'm the co president of the Sumner Citizens Association.
Sumner is a neighborhood of 550 residences and about 1,500 inhabitants located directly
across from the ICCB campus.
The concerns of this community are the same as those named by the previous speakers from
the other neighborhoods.
That is to say, the environment which includes the concerns of runoff, erosion, destruction
of the tree canopy, and view from the canal and from streets backing onto the site.
There is already a major gully caused by erosion from the current installation and substantial
sedimentation along MacArthur and along the Clara Barton Parkway.
Next traffic concerns.
The site abuts an elementary school on Sangamore Road with 280 students who come and go every
weekday during school season.
Providing safe passage for those students, teachers, and parents is paramount.
In addition, residents must commute to work daily and must deal with the additional traffic
turning into the ICCB from both directions on Sangamore coming from MacArthur and from
Massachusetts both of which are impacted by the high volume of traffic.
The number of cars of 3,000 employees ultimately and their impact needs to be carefully studied
to avoid all unnecessary disruption to the residential areas that border the site.
The optimum interim objective would be to allow more time to afford a comprehensive
study of the issues and the concerns of the local residents regarding the near term and
the long term effects of this project on the environment and on the lives of the residents.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much.
Next up is Mr. David Berg representing the Brookmont Civic League.
You have five minutes.
Welcome.
MR. BERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and to all the people here.
We support the comments that have been made previously.
Thank you for this opportunity.
Brookmont learned of this project only after the funds were finalized.
We were never notified.
The public notices go in the Washington Post or the Federal Register.
We never knew.
Thanks to Harry Pfohl we found out in time for the October meeting.
Our concern is that the project go forward but be done responsibly.
That's the critical issue for us.
The current site Master Plan does not meet this community requirement.
It is vague and contains many inaccuracies.
It cannot serve as the basis for environmentally sound redevelopment.
All of the critical documents; the EA, the site Master Plan, and the very well developed
Phase 1 plan, including the contract, guarantee that significant long term impacts will arise
from this project both on and near the site to the Palisades, the river valley, the National
Parks, and our neighborhoods.
The Master Plan permits the Corps to intensively develop a small portion of the site, only
six acres that remains forested on the Palisades and in the river valley all of which is directly
adjacent to the National Park land.
This one thing will end decades long work in our area by Montgomery County to preserve,
and I quote, "The Potomac Palisades' unique environmental features of steeply wooded slopes
and vistas and perpetuation of open space character established in the area." I'm quoting
from their Master Plan, Bethesda Chevy Chase Master Plan of 1990, page 1, paragraph 3.
The clear cutting of mature forest on the site planned by the Corps told to you by the
Corps will cause this long term significant damage.
We have a number of general and specific concerns.
I have a written document I'll give you that will go beyond what I can in five minutes.
Inaccuracies and omissions exist in every bullet on pages 2 and 3 of the recommendations
from the staff.
They undermine the overall recommendation that the Commission approve the site Master
Plan.
We ask directly that you ask the Corps to work with us and the National Parks to resolve
these several important issues before you approve or revise the site Master Plan later.
We have six over arching comments and have a request for the Commission.
Number 1, I've already said the site Master Plan will certainly cause long term and significant
adverse environmental impacts.
It will do this first by cutting the trees.
I have an example which I don't have time to go into.
The staff report quotes the Master Plan as saying, "The redevelopment of the site is
consistent with many of Montgomery County's recommendations with the Master Plan including
federal employment I'm sorry." The primary purpose of the Master Plan is protection of
the Palisades in the Potomac River Valley and it says so plainly." I just read you the
quote from that.
Because of this use of the word "minimize in the Master Plan, the Master Plan is incapable
of sustaining the Corps goal.
It is a loophole.
The word minimize is a loophole that the Corps is using to bulldoze 500 feet of trees on
the Palisades and down the steep slopes of the Potomac River Valley.
And it will also guarantee that severe erosion and sedimentation problems will remain.
So we ask, therefore, that you direct the Corps to modify the site Master Plan to remove
all statements and ambiguities that can lead to this long lasting environmental in a study
quorum.
The six acres of remaining forest should be protected unequivocally in the Master Plan.
Second point.
Over the years of operation site operations have caused erosion and sedimentation in two
locations which the Corps had difficulty identifying for you.
The EA mentions only one of these points and it mentions no places where sedimentation
occurs.
One place is in the C&O Canal.
The superintendent is very disturbed about that.
The Corps has rejected our request that they clean it up because legitimately the budget
for this is BRAC money.
They can't use it for it.
There is no suggestion that they will be proper stewards of the environment and find a way
to clean it up.
We can't trust their stewardship their commitment to stewardship until they do.
May I continue briefly?
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Briefly.
MR. BERG: So we would ask you to direct them to take responsibility for remediating the
existing extensive erosion and sedimentation.
The third issue is the traffic plan.
Very simply, the traffic plan covers one block of Sangamore Road.
Every car getting to that one block travels the length of Sangamore Road, or half the
length of Sangamore Road, but it also must travel either on MacArthur or Massachusetts.
The Department of Energy's environmental process, which I'm very familiar with, you must cover
regional issues.
The Corps doesn't do that.
There is extensive and well known congestion in those areas that should be addressed by
the county and the Corps should work with them on that.
Their traffic plan did not give them the information necessary so we ask you to work with them
to make sure they revise that.
Steve spoke about the need for a transportation management plan.
We ask that you ask them to provide greater specificity there.
We certainly appreciate the recent engagement but we are not there yet and we need to have
a very solid Master Plan that doesn't have these vagaries that allow them to use the
word minimize to cover the fact that they are going to expose a 500 foot expanse of
the parking garage to the west, as well as the 250 foot expanse of the garage to the
south to the viewshed in Washington, D.C. , Virginia, and Maryland.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: You need to wrap up.
MR. BERG: Okay.
So we request that you ask them to declare this time out.
It is extremely important that we continue the process that we've begun.
I know a fair amount about the environmental process.
As I said, I was at EPA for 25 years before I was at the Department of Energy and before
I retired.
This FONSI should never have been issued.
There will be long term impacts and they will be substantial and significant.
All the magic words are there.
They've revealed all that to you in their presentation.
They should withdraw the FONSI and redo the EA so that it is truthful as well as the other
thing.
You have no Master Plan that is worth the salt that we use to sprinkle in our food.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Berg, very much.
The last two speakers are Mr. Brad Northrup followed by Harry Lewis.
Mr. Northrup, you are representing yourself.
You'll have three minutes.
MR. NORTHRUP: Yes.
I'm a member of the Board of the Brookmont Civic League and a resident of that community
for 27 years.
I'll be brief and just say what we have what the community is faced with here is a proposal
that is lacking an adequate process for making the determinations that need to be made by
the community.
It is faced with a lack of specific information and clarity about exactly what is going to
happen on this property.
It is also not clear about a number of the issues that will be taking place in and around
the garage.
We feel that the decision that was made in the development of this project to dramatically
change the parking on the site, to sweep it up into a six foot story, 2,000 car garage,
and to locate it on the Palisades of the Potomac create the major issue around this from the
environmental and aesthetic standpoint.
Regarding the lack of information, as some others have also indicated, we have no really
good information in mapping of where this garage will be located relative to the slopes.
We don't have elevations.
We don't have clarity about what trees are going to be cut.
We don't have good information about the impact of the construction that is already planned
even with the relocation of the garage that will include not only this sediment pond you've
heard about on the northwest corner, but also the retaining walls we know are going have
to be placed there.
Also the perimeter that has to be developed around the garage so a lot of information
is missing from that standpoint.
We are uncertain about actually why the size of the garage is what it is.
We heard that there's been various information about how many cars are actually going to
be needed.
We don't know whether this garage is actually at the right size in addition to whether it's
in the right location.
Actually we've in this discussion today a number of good ideas about what might be done
to actually get this further back from the Palisades and to make it more acceptable to
the community and the concerns we have about its environmental and aesthetic impact.
David who preceded me mentioned the Master Plan and the importance it places on the environmental
quality and the existence of skyline along the Palisades is maintained.
It says that various measures should be taken to make sure that happens.
We want to urge the Commission to not at this point approve this Master Plan.
The process hasn't been adequate.
We don't want to lose the teeth that provides us to get the things done that need to be
done.
We would like to have the Commission have its actions consistent with the Master Plan
and its need to take these various measures and the need of the Commission to protect
the natural resources of the National Capital Region.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Northrup, very much.
Last is Mr. Harry Lewis.
Welcome, Mr. Lewis.
You have three minutes.
MR. HERN: My name is David Hern.
I'm a friend and neighbor of Harry Lewis.
He is unable to be here today and he sent me an email authorizing me to speak on his
behalf if that's okay.
I appreciate you all letting us testify on this matter.
I have a photo to hand out.
I have two copies that I'll pass around.
This photo is taken from the Potomac River just below Little Falls Dam and it shows the
500 foot stretch.
Part of it is a narrow band of trees where you can see blue sky passing through just
to the right of the dam building.
On the left side of the photo are the Wapakoneta residences.
The main point I want to raise is in this picture here the proposed garage the long
side of it is 500 feet long.
Between that edge of the garage to the west and the property line the slopes falls off
very steeply and the trees which define the top edge of forest up against the sky are
rather narrow.
That's the stretch that would get cut down right along the edge of the garage.
In essence, the view from the river will become notched for about the 500 foot stretch along
that garage where right now we have the expanse of old growth, woodland.
I've been canoeing on the river for almost my whole life.
The Potomac Gorge is really an incredible jewel of wilderness that extends out from
Georgetown all the way out to the headwaters of the Potomac.
We can be in a wild environment just minutes from the Nation's Capital.
As the ICCB Master Plan expresses, we want to preserve all that.
Once those large trees are cut, it's going to take decades for them to grow back.
I support the efforts to move the garage back away from the edge of that ridge so that the
trees could be actually preserved as was promised to the park superintendent at the meeting
in January.
Sorry I don't have more copies of the photo and I should have brought it on a flash drive
so we can project it.
I appreciate your willingness to listen to our concerns and we hope you will realize
that the Master Plan is flawed and should be revised before being considered seriously.
Thanks very much.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much.
That ends the public comment period and we'll return the discussion to the Commission members.
Is there any other additional conversation among the Commission members?
Ms. Tregoning.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I just have a question about the procedural aspects of what we're
doing.
So we clearly approve in the executive director's recommendation only a part of the Master Plan
and we specifically defer action on the site and design alignment of the proposed parking
garage.
Just to play devil's advocate CHAIRMAN BRYANT: And the access road.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: And the access road.
Is it possible that those elements would never come before us again and they could live with
what they have?
Then the so called environmental features of the overall plan I guess would be significantly
diminished because you would still have all that surface parking.
Is that what could happen?
MR. HINKLE: I think our intent and how we structured the recommendation is to not approve
anything related to the access of the garage in terms of how it's laid out.
That means that they couldn't come back to us with what's in the Master Plan currently.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: But they could proceed with all the building construction that they're
talking about and maybe never come back to us at all.
MR. HINKLE: They will be required to come back as a Phase 1 and Phase 2 approval process.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: The buildings have to come back?
MR. HINKLE: Correct.
MS. SCHUYLER: Phase 1 the way the report is written is the parking.
I think there's some merit to what you say that if they don't if you defer Phase 1, they
could leave surface parking.
Phase 2 are the larger buildings.
Any specific proposal under the way the Commission operates have to come back for a specific
review.
COMMISSIONER MAY: I would sort of ask the question the other way around.
It seems like if Phase 1 is the parking garage and that is going to be the first thing coming
back, why are we bothering improving the second half of it?
Why don't we just defer the whole thing until the parking garage is ready?
What is the real utility of taking the action that's proposed here today?
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: What's the utility of taking the action proposed today?
COMMISSIONER MAY: Does it provide them any necessary approvals that allow them to take
other steps?
MR. ACOSTA: Well, perhaps the Corps can answer the question.
I think Marge was saying there were some contracting issues that they wanted to proceed with.
I think this is all sort of in a way to allow to encourage the community and the discussions
that have been going on over the last couple of months or so to continue and to resolve
those before coming back to the parking and the access issue.
With respect to whether the Commission defers this piece or the entire piece, my understanding
from staff was it was an issue of contrast.
They were starting their process.
This isn't a BRAC related process for the main buildings, but I could be wrong.
COMMISSIONER MAY: I think it would be helpful to hear directly from the Corps about what
specific advantage comes from this action as opposed to a complete deferral.
In terms of encouraging the Corps to engage in constructive dialogue, there is nothing
more encouraging than deferring action on the whole Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: And I would, of course, as is my norm go a little further and say
rewarding bad behavior.
What seems really I would like to hear some if there's a contradiction from the Corps
that they actually pursued this dialogue because it doesn't sound like it.
It seems I mean, are we allowed to ask for that?
MR. HINKLE: Let me just explain a piece of the process that I don't think has come out
it.
That is that the Corps has been in a lot of discussions with the county as well and one
step that was taken was on September 22nd of this year the Maryland National Capital
Planning Board National Capital Parks and Planning Board actually reviewed the project
and the Master Plan and provided the Commission with comments which you can find on page 40.
In terms of our conversations with both the Corps and the county, one of the agreements
that we have is that prior to Phase 1 as well as Phase 2 coming back to this Commission
that they go back to the county planning board again for additional comments on those two
phases.
So that's one step that should occur prior to us seeing some additional design on the
site.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That's not what I'm really asking.
I'm asking about the conversations with the neighborhood because to hear them tell it,
they have not been consulted in a timely way.
Is the Corps allowed to address that in this forum?
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Why don't you come back up and address a few issues, not the least of
which is what contract help us have a little better appreciation of the contracting deadlines
and such that you're facing.
MR. OLSON: Certainly.
We have the Phase 1 contract, design build contract, that has been issued.
It is our desire to have the Master Plan approval because what it really defines for us are
the large features that are contained with the redevelopment of the site.
It goes to the ideas of taking up the surface parking and replacing it with a parking deck.
Now, the specifics of that parking deck, orientation, size, and all those aspects are addressed
in the design documents that will come back before the Commission.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: But that's not my question.
My question is about MR. OLSON: I don't know if that was COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: I know what
a Master Plan is.
MR. OLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: But I'm asking the question about the community because they are being
pretty direct in their claims that the Corps has been remiss in consulting them.
MR. OLSON: I would say they are being a little liberal with their interpretation and how
they see it.
What I can say is there were we followed our process with regard to the EA.
The EA that went out was basically this kind of document so the concerns expressed by about
not having enough detail and things like that are things that we would not normally incorporate
into a Master Plan.
General locations, you know, renderings as we know it at that time, are things that are
appropriate for that.
We did engage in the process on November 2010, public comment using our standard process.
When the EA was posted there was another public comment.
We did the agency coordination and we have taken that back.
We did not engage in direct dialogue until October so that is when some of the other
communities that have testified here that felt they weren't afforded the opportunity
to be heard came forward and had their opportunity to be heard and we took this but it wasn't
a direct or obvious means to avoid public engagement.
We just used our standard process.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So with the location of the garage as it exist now in the Master
Plan, are you saying since you are well into the design process that you are not open to
looking at other options for its location?
MR. OLSON: We believe that we have optimized the location of the parking garage on the
site given the constraints that we have as inputs to the design process.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Is that a no?
MR. OLSON: We believe we've optimized the COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: I'm asking you a direct
question.
Is that no?
MR. OLSON: We are looking at possible adjustments that were mentioned on 29 November but we
believe that this is the best location on the site that manages multiple competing demands.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Is that a no?
You are unwilling to consider another location.
That's as plain as it gets.
MR. OLSON: And I'm giving you the answer that I think we have the best location picked on
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: But that's not an answer to a question because it's a waste of everyone's
time if the answer is no.
I mean, let's be direct.
Shall we?
MR. OLSON: I can't see a better place to put it on the site.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay.
I give up.
I wave the white flag.
Somebody else?
Would you like to have a go at this?
COMMISSIONER MAY: I'm not sure I'm ready to boil this down to a yes or no question about
whether it's worth having further discussions because I think it is worth having further
discussions.
It's more than what's I think what's in play is more than what's in the EDR right now siting
and alignment.
I mean, that sort of implies, I think, tweaking.
But I think the size of the garage is still in question.
The overall placement beyond I mean, yes, what they did to angle it I think is beneficial
but it's not as beneficial as moving it into the middle of the area that already is parking.
I don't think that's been fully investigated.
Even if you're trying to minimize the impacts on the slope, I can still see things on this
diagrammatic plan that could be improved to further back it away from the slope.
I think all of that is I mean, the real question I have at this moment which remains unanswered
is what is gained by approving this EDR right now?
Is there any real gain to the Corps right now or can this be deferred for a month or
two while the conversations are held and everything is I mean, I know you want to get an approval
as fast as possible but we are clearly not going to approve the parking garage as it's
shown right there right now.
Is there anything to be gained by approving everything other than that right now?
Is there anything that you get out of it that you absolutely have to have?
MR. OLSON: I think from the standpoint of executing the contract that we have, the process
that we would engage in with regard to submitting the design documents would address the specific
locations of the garage.
But when you start talking about moving to alternate locations and things like that,
we've kind of been through that process and perhaps we can come back and present that
to the Commission.
We do feel that we have arrived at the best solution for the siting of the garage on this
site.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay, but you're not answering my question.
MR. OLSON: The answer is basically we have a construction contract that has been awarded
and we have a construction contract that is in design and we feel that it's not in the
government's best interest COMMISSIONER MAY: I can understand and appreciate that but the
sort of deadline I'm looking at is that, you know, an expiration of funding kind of thing
or something where there really is a drop dead deadline and that's not what I see.
I mean, being as efficient as possible in the construction of this, absolutely I understand
it.
I appreciate it.
There are lots of ways to tackle that but forcing a decision at this moment is not the
best way to do it.
That's where I am.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Getting back to the specific language that's in the staff recommendation
at this point, it's simply approval of the Master Plan with deferral of the parking garage
and access road which I think was previously emphasized.
While it says up here concept and Phase 1 design, we are not approving concept and Phase
1 design.
Again, we are just approving the Master Plan.
Is that correct?
We will see ultimately the final the preliminary and final site design and preliminary and
final building design.
MR. HINKLE: Correct.
For both phases.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: In general I'm concerned but I'm sensitive also to the time frames
that you are attempting to meet with the award in September to Clark design build is your
acquisition strategy.
You want to start construction in June, May, April?
When did you want to start construction?
Fifteen months for Phase 1?
MR. OLSON: It's basically a 15 month duration for the contract.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: But when do you want to start?
I'm just trying to get the total scope of the MR. OLSON: The initial schedule that Clark
had proposed was talking starting construction in December, this month.
However, because of the adjustments we are making to the design, that has been delayed.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: So that would be September '11 to March '12.
Three months between the two phases so April, May, June of '13.
It says the end of '16, through December of '16 for Phase 2.
MR. OLSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: June of '13 to December '16.
Pretty aggressive.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Hart.
COMMISSIONER HART: A point of clarification on the parking ratio.
In prior submissions to the Commission I understood that a parking ratio of one parking space
for 1.5 employees was all the parking.
It included ADA, handicapped spaces, VIP, visitors, vanpools, carpools, electric, and
all that.
It was a single ratio.
Is that correct?
MR. HINKLE: I would characterize that as a misunderstanding.
We took COMMISSIONER HART: What falls outside of that 1 to 1.5 spaces for employees?
MR. HINKLE: All those other spaces you just identified.
COMMISSIONER HART: What is the ratio for those?
MR. HINKLE: There is none.
It's based on the site.
MR. ACOSTA: The ratios are for employee parking employees.
The rest are to be determined by the Commission based on COMMISSIONER HART: My concern in
part is that that's a big hole.
That's a big donut that you can fill with a lot of other stuff.
What's happening here is we are going from 1,800 spaces to 2,240.
It's a 25 percent increase over the existing number of spaces.
It's like filling a void.
That is going to be that much more traffic.
I'm not hearing that their traffic study is up to date and it is accommodating this 25
percent increase of potential vehicles in and out of the site.
I have reservations on the traffic side of this.
On the physical side I share with all the comments that have been made about the impact
on the Potomac River, National Park Service viewsheds.
Then there is a third concern that I've got which is the stormwater management.
I think this development should meet the commercial requirements of the Maryland Department of
Environment stormwater management requirements.
We shouldn't be exempting ourselves out simply because we're a federal agency.
Going forward I think that the Master Plan that's presented should address all those
things.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I guess based on all the conversation that we're heard here, we
don't yet have a motion in front of us but I would just note that my back of the envelope
is if they were to reduce the parking spaces by 200, they could save between $5 million
and $10 million in construction cost that might pay for some of these other things.
For me it's a bit of a matter of principal this issue that we are paying money to protect
employee parking from attack.
I just think that's not appropriate.
You know, saying that you considered all the alternatives if that was never considered,
I would have to beg to differ and say that is an alternative we would absolutely want
you to consider.
If we were to go with the EDR as drafted, I would suggest that we would explicitly request
that the applicant evaluate excluding car parking from the secured zone when the deferred
elements come back to us for approval.
But I'm sensing among my fellow commissioners a desire to not approve anything at this point
and defer the whole thing.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: There has been no motion put forth.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I would be happy to move the EDR and then we could see what we
can do with it.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: The EDR as written is moved.
Is there a second?
There is no second.
It's been seconded for purposes of discussion.
It is before us.
This is the revised version, I will remind you, which would approve the Master Plan for
action on deciding design and allotment of the garage and the access road.
COMMISSIONER MAY: May I comment?
I would agree with Ms. Tregoning that if we were to take action to approve this, that
it should include language that encourages investigating having parking outside the fence.
This is not a question that we often have to consider because usually the sites are
so constrained or so established that it really isn't an issue.
There is really no good way to have parking outside the fence and still have it in close
proximity.
Here you have the space for the parking and you have the space for the perimeter.
It makes perfect sense for it to not be inside the fence and that scales down the size of
any kind of inspection facility to just vehicles that have to reach the building.
I think it makes a great deal of sense to investigate that in this circumstance, assuming,
of course, that's something that's possible for DOD facilities.
I haven't heard anything to indicate that it's not.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Is this an amendment?
COMMISSIONER MAY: Not yet.
I would also include in the amendment that the size of the facility be included as something
for further investigation.
Again, I'm not sure I'm ready to vote in favor of it with those amendments either.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Could the Corps enlighten us on the parking issue what is inside and
outside the fence?
The Pentagon, for example, parking is more or less inside the fence.
It's not necessarily a fence but it's a patrolled area.
Mark Center is a mix.
South parking is within the perimeter.
North parking is outside.
Anything we put on military installations is typically by definition within the fence.
Sometimes there's a fence within a fence.
For example, the NGA facility at Engineer Proving Grounds at Ft.
Belvoir North.
Could you give us an idea of similar sites where the parking might be inside or outside
the secure perimeter?
MR. OLSON: Basically relative to the intelligence community and the type of mission that's going
on here, our experience in those cases that I'm familiar with, they are all inside the
fence.
They are all secured vehicles that move in, inspected vehicles that move in.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Can I ask a question?
Are all vehicles that park at the Pentagon inside?
I mean, are they inspected as they enter those parking lots?
So they are not?
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: There are roughly 8,000 parking spaces at the Pentagon.
Roughly 3,000 are within this perimeter and are expected daily before they get I mean,
proximity parking to the building.
COMMISSIONER MAY: The fact that they would not be inspected here doesn't mean they would
not be secure.
They could be secure within the building or secured with their own fence but not inspected
and, therefore, you lose a lot of that queuing space.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: They have the worst of both worlds here.
Like you have the distance of a standoff between the building and the garage.
Okay?
So why have that distance if they are inspected and secure?
You can put it right next to the building.
Or, you know, have anyway.
I don't know why you would have to have it secure.
Like I say, other people park, that was one of the complaints, other places.
No one is required to park at the garage.
I don't understand our security interest in protecting automobiles unoccupied automobiles.
COMMISSIONER HART: From what I've seen this really doesn't meet the level of a site development
plan.
In fact, we are looking at a site development plan, not a Master Plan.
We are looking at a in state development solution for this site and we are looking at all the
Those pieces are still in play.
I'm not ready to approve this because nothing is fixed.
The answers have not been adequately provided for a lot of the major concerns here.
I think this plan has to go back for full development.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Would you like to move an amendment to the EDR?
COMMISSIONER HART: No, I don't want to approve the plan.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I would be happy to.
Can I make I moved the EDR.
Can I make an amendment to that motion?
I move that we amend the EDR to defer the entire approval with some of the language
that we've just talked about.
Instead of approving, we would say deferring approval of the Master Plan and further defer
action just to be specific.
And, finally, to request that the applicant evaluate a smaller garage.
Does that do it for you?
And excluding car parking from the secured perimeter when the deferred elements come
back to the Commission for approval.
COMMISSIONER DENIS: I'll second the motion.
COMMISSIONER HART: All right.
Will that include further analysis of stormwater traffic?
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: I think CHAIRMAN BRYANT: We're going to have a mish mash here in a
second.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: The language about an alternative location would have to be in there
because it's not just about the perimeter.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: True.
A smaller garage, alternative locations, and excluding car parking.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: There is some language about alignment.
Could alignment be stretched to include relocation along the north perimeter as opposed to the
northwest perimeter?
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I think that gets to tweaking versus moving.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Would not also an alternative to deferral would be disapproval
at that time also amount in effect to deferral?
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I don't think you want us to disapprove.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Can I make a suggestion?
If the motion were simply withdrawn and then the staff can work with the Corps to try to
come up with a good approvable recommendation at the next meeting or the following meeting.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: The suggestion is just to withdraw the motion that is on the table and we take no action.
MR. ACOSTA: Defer action until next time.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Take no action.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: But we also are not going on the record in the same way about
what we want them to look at.
That's my only concern about that.
COMMISSIONER MAY: I think they got that message.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Should we come back to it?
MR. ACOSTA: If you COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Go ahead.
MR. ACOSTA: If we recess for five minutes we could write something out and then get
it back to you for consideration.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Could we actually go on to the next item and take it up after the
next item?
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Why don't we do that.
We've had a long day.
Let's keep plowing.
We're going to let this matter rest on the table for a moment.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: We're going to move on to Item No. 5B which is the Federal Heritage
Trail.
We have Mr. Hart.
Let's bring the room back to order.
Mr. Hart, please proceed.
MR. HART: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission.
The project before you today is the Federal Triangle Heritage Trail submitted by the General
Services Administration.
It's located in NW Washington bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue, Constitution, and 15th Streets.
This is in for preliminary and final site development approval.
You may recall in March of 2010 the Commission heard staff present the Federal Triangle Heritage
Trail Assessment Study.
This was a collaboration between the Commission and the Cultural Tourism D.C. organization
which is a nonprofit in D.C. Also in partnership with the General Services Administration,
the National Park Service, and the Office of Planning look to develop this assessment
study.
This project that is before you today that GSA has submitted to us is the implementation
of that study.
A little background.
In 1982 the Federal Walk, which is now known as the Federal Triangle Heritage Trail, was
first identified in the Federal Triangle Master Plan.
It was also reiterated in several plans that you see here, the Revised Master Plan for
the Federal Triangle Extending the Legacy and in the urban guidelines for the Federal
Triangle.
Most recently in the Monumental Corps Framework Plan.
As you all know, one of the main goals of the framework plan was to make connections
between the Mall and neighborhoods and the rest of downtown.
The Federal Triangle Heritage Trail Assessment Study, which is on the right of this slide,
that is a product of the framework plan.
The goals of the trial are to look to improve pedestrian connection, enliven public spaces,
connect and extend existing trails.
There are several in the downtown area that Cultural Tourism has installed and this would
connect to them.
Showcase history and culture.
Educate the public.
This is an opportunity to engage with the many visitors that come to the Mall.
Also recognize the government employee.
There are many government agencies in the Federal Triangle and this is one way to recognize
their service.
Proposed sign locations.
This is a plan showing the locations of the 16 signs that are being proposed.
The signs themselves several are located along Pennsylvania Avenue.
Moving to the west and then down 4th Street to the south excuse me, on the western side
of the site.
Then along Constitution Avenue there are several more signs.
And then terminating with the last sign in front of the Federal Trade Commission building.
This is a self guided tour.
Visitors can approach any of the signs at any point.
It's not necessarily a sequential process.
Also identified on this slide are the existing Heritage Trails themselves, the blue lines
that are here.
This would connect well with the existing signs.
GSA has coordinated with a variety of entities that have jurisdiction in this area along
Pennsylvania Avenue.
You see the green dots here.
They indicate the National Park Service property.
Along Constitution Avenue their jurisdiction is both with the District Department of Transportation
as well as the National Archives.
DDOT is the blue dots and the archives is the yellow dots.
The remainder of the signs are actually on GSA property.
This is the sign this is the same sign as the existing historic signs.
You see an example of that down in the bottom left.
The overall sign height is seven and a quarter feet.
It is two and two thirds feet in width.
They are laminated panels on an aluminum base with an aluminum top as well.
They are doubled sided and they contain text, maps, and photographs describing art, architecture,
and history.
Each sign has been sited along I'm sorry.
Each sign that has been sited along the trail will be visible and accessible but will not
impede pedestrian flow.
This is generally been possible because of the coordination that GSA has done with the
various agencies that I mentioned earlier.
There are 16 signs, as I said earlier.
These are the themes that GSA has proposed.
The Commission is not being asked to review the content of the signs themselves but wanted
to just wanted to show you what those themes were.
There are several images here that could possibly be on the signs themselves showing a variety
of events and buildings that are of importance to the Federal Triangle.
They submitted a First Impressions program which is a building identification sign program
and the Commission approved that in September of this year.
This is just an overlay to show where the Federal Triangle Heritage Trail signs are
located with respect to those signs.
This is really just for your information.
The staff analysis.
We looked at both historic preservation as well as consistency with existing plans.
There is no will not be an impact to historic resources again going to GSA's coordination
with the various agencies.
This is an interpretive function, educational, consistent with other trails in the city.
The D.C. State Historic Preservation Office concurs with GSA's no adverse effect determination.
Staff also concurs with this determination.
For plan consistency, the Federal Triangle Master Plan this proposal is consistent with
the Federal Triangle Master Plan.
At that time it was identified as the Federal Walk, Extending the Legacy Plan, and the Monumental
Corps Framework Plan.
These signs are interpretive, as I said earlier.
The sign locations do not interfere with pedestrian movements.
We are not reviewing the content of the signs.
The trail will help to strengthen the pedestrian connections between the Mall and downtown.
This was, again, one of the main points of the Monumental Corps Framework Plan.
With that, the staff would recommend that the Commission approve the preliminary and
final site development plans for the Federal Triangle Heritage Trail which is a self guided
walking tour consisting of 16 signs that highlight the architecture and history of the Federal
Triangle located in North West.
That concludes my presentation.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Hart.
Discussion or questions?
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Yes, sir.
I have a few.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: It looks like the signs that are proposed are consistent with
the ones that are being used for the District of Columbia Neighborhood Heritage Trail signs.
We had positive history with those signs.
For example, right size, right placement.
Don't need supplemental lighting.
The plastic laminate has been easily maintained.
You don't have problems with cleaning.
That type of thing.
It's good to be consistent if what you are being consistent with has been durable and
functional and easily maintained.
MR. HART: This was using these signs was actually part of the assessment study.
A lot of that was evaluated through that process.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Any provision for the visually impaired?
MR. HART: I know that there are actually, I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: The reason I ask we've recently become aware of and are looking at
the technology of RIAS, Remote Infrared Acoustic Signage.
It's not been widely used but used initially with some Department of Transportation initial
grant and seed money on the West Coast in California and in the State of Washington
but we can't find any usage here on the East Coast.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: We are not going to be doing that on the signs themselves but concurrent
with this effort along with the First Impressions exterior signage.
The Federal Triangle finds itself in the enviable position of being GSA's guinea pig for a number
of projects right now.
The Heritage Trail is not necessarily a prototypical one.
We don't have plans to do another one but we are going to be replacing the exterior
signage which you've seen as a Commission.
Then with that and in beta testing right now is a mobile it's not an ap.
There is mobile web content interpreting the trail I mean, interpreting the Federal Triangle
as a prototype that goes along with our exterior signage.
It is not necessarily going to provide enhanced access for the visually impaired anymore than
what might be had on a smartphone but it will also be desktop.
There will be a desktop version which provides at least gets us a little bit further.
I can't say that we have streaming audio to go with it but we will be capable of providing
that through this meeting to go with it.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: So there will be a mix of the GSA First Impression sign and Heritage
Trial signs in the Triangle, 30, 40 signs total?
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: And there is a way to deconflict so you don't duplicate?
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Well, the signage COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: The signage content?
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: The First Impression signs will just be the building address.
Those will replace the brown ribbon signs and some of the blue signs with the silver
block type that you see around right now.
Most of the ones in the Triangle are the ribbon signs, though, and are in very poor shape
so they are replacing signs.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Page 12 of the report shows 23 signs.
The final number now is 16 so some subjects or some buildings have been MR. HART: It's
really the assessment study looked at a number of signs.
It was in the general direction of where you might be able to put these.
It was not in stone that this is where these have to be.
The content is still included in this.
They were just placed in little different locations.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Did you say one of the purposes was to celebrate the contributions
of employees in federal service?
MR. HART: Yes.
They actually have COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Looking at the proposed content there is not
a lot of that.
It looks like celebrating agencies and buildings and missions as opposed to people.
Just an observation.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Any other questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER HART: Just a quick question.
It is a partnership with Cultural Tourism of D.C. They have done fantastic work throughout
the city with these Heritage Trails.
The content isn't before us but I just wondered do you know who is reviewing the content of,
in particular, the one place I'm interested in is No. 7, Washington, D.C. Capital and
City, the Wilson Building, and District of Columbia Government.
Is there any consultation with those who might be in the Wilson Building and District of
Columbia Government?
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: This is Ruth Hargraves.
She's the project manager for GSA.
MS. HARGRAVES: Yes.
We've had points of contact with every building.
In the case of the Wilson Building we've gone through.
It's actually the Secretary's office.
We talked to several different people.
They decided that we left it up to every building to decide who is their point of contact so
I can get you the name of the person.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: The EDR is before you.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I move.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: It has been moved and seconded that the EDR before you as written be adopted.
Hearing no further discussion, all in favor the EDR say aye.
ALL: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no?
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Let's turn our attention back to Item 5A, the ICC Campus Master Plan.
I believe there may be an amendment structured or rewrite.
MS. YOUNG: The Commission defers action of the Master Plan for the Intelligence Community
Campus, Bethesda, Montgomery County, Maryland, and require that the applicant evaluate alternatives
to the size, location, and capacity of the parking garage and require compliance with
all applicable federal, state, and local stormwater management control standards and regulations
both during and after construction.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: We didn't say anything about evaluating excluding the parking garage
from the secured zone.
MS. SCHUYLER: When that was discussed staff advised that they would work very closely
with the applicant on the analysis and get the locations analyzed that the Commission
was interested in.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I mean, that might be true for all of it so why bother to specify
anything?
I thought that was actually one of the kind of biggest principles that we wanted to make
sure we articulated.
MS. SCHUYLER: We have an alternative ready.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: I would support that, too, because we're looking at this on another
Master Plan that is currently in the works and it would be beneficial for a number of
projects, I think, coming up.
I can think of two that we are involved in where this is an open question as to whether
or not a garage has to be inside the perimeter of security.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Deborah, can you address that?
MS. YOUNG: Yes.
Require that the applicant evaluate alternatives to the size, location, and capacity of the
parking garage to include exclusion of parking from the secure perimeter [and then the rest]
and require compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local stormwater management
control standards and regulations.
COMMISSIONER HART: I have a slight problem with the stormwater wording because if MDE
exempts federal government property, that puts us outside of their control and effectively
takes away any stormwater requirements.
I would like to say that it would meet the commercial requirements for MDE stormwater
management.
COMMISSIONER MAY: I would just want to observe that I don't believe that I mean, I don't
know the case of what happens to MDE but I know that the Park Service about the only
area where we are subject to local jurisdiction is in stormwater management.
I mean, that's true even when I worked for the Architect of the Capitol so the Congress
COMMISSIONER HART: As long as we're not exempting ourselves from the standards that would be
applied to commercial development I'm okay with that.
COMMISSIONER MAY: I can't say for sure that's the case but I don't believe so.
COMMISSIONER HART: Did we cover traffic in that?
MS. YOUNG: No, we did not address traffic.
COMMISSIONER HART: There were a number of comments about traffic not just at the intersection
but in the surrounding community.
A full traffic study that would be updated from any 2001 data that might have been used
I think is warranted, particularly given the increased number of parking spaces.
COMMISSIONER MAY: I am not sure I'm necessarily ready to require a whole new traffic study
because of the potential time that could take.
The fact that there were previously 3,000 cars there I think I'm sorry, there were previously
3,000 workers there, I think, is a helpful background.
There clearly needs to be a substantial number of parking spaces because of the location
of the thing.
While I'm sensitive to the traffic impacts, it seems to me that's one of the more manageable
issues that we're dealing with.
The big issue here is the parking garage size and location and inside the fence or outside
the fence.
COMMISSIONER HART: I agree.
In order of the hierarchy of issues, I think the 25 percent increase in the amount of vehicles
that are permitted there on site is a significant increase.
COMMISSIONER WELLS: I would also say that the number of vehicles needed impacts the
size of the garage.
If it is based on community input there wasn't even a study, it was community input 10 years
ago it doesn't seem to be much justification for having that many more parking spaces.
In fact, there may be a reason to drop the number of parking spaces in terms of the size
of the facility.
I agree that a traffic study is quite onerous and that may not be the way to get at it but
there certainly just should be some kind of justification for how many spaces are needed,
especially when you're going outside of the 1.5 because there is no real standard in terms
of what the add on is.
As we all know in our different jurisdictions that the parking requirements are changing.
COMMISSIONER MAY: I would agree with that.
The only concern I have is requiring them to do a whole new traffic study which could
add months to the process which I think is a concern.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: What do you have?
MS. SCHUYLER: There seems to be some further comments coming from staff that the project
is, in fact, subject to the Maryland stormwater regulations.
It is, in fact, subject to the ESA regulations, the energy which says you can't have anymore
runoff from the site after than you had before.
It has a full traffic analysis which was signed off by the State of Maryland so the question
is do you want them you don't necessarily need to add anything about stormwater and
are you of the impression that the traffic analysis that the state signed off on is insufficient
and, therefore, should be supplemented in some way?
COMMISSIONER MAY: I would just suggest that the examination of the size of the parking
garage is sufficient to get to that point.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: So I think we might be talking about going with the second iteration
that you talked about?
COMMISSIONER HART: That would be fine.
MS. SCHUYLER: Without anything as to stormwater management or traffic?
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Anything different.
Nothing different than you already have.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: But Deborah's second version, not the first version.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Ms. Young, read that one more time when you're ready.
MS. YOUNG: Yes, sir.
Defer action of the Master Plan for Intelligence Community Campus, Bethesda, Montgomery County,
Maryland, and require that the applicant evaluate alternatives to the size, location, and capacity
of the parking garage to include exclusion of parking from the secured perimeter.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Okay.
You've heard the revised EDR the revised revised EDR.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Does the previous motion have to be withdrawn and that one adopted?
Is that the cleanest way to get to this?
MS. SCHUYLER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I would be happy to withdraw my motion.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Commissioner Tregoning has withdrawn her previous motion.
It's no longer on the table.
The revised EDR has just been read.
Is there a motion for it?
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Just one more point, please, before we vote.
While it was highly commendable and praiseworthy and it was noted frequently that there is
a 49 percent decrease in the impervious acreage from 19.6 down to 9.6.
Is that perhaps an area of some negotiation?
For example, some of that is preserved in order to shrink the garage floor by floor
by floor?
For discussion.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: I don't understand what you're suggesting.
COMMISSIONER MAY: Preserve impervious surface in order to shrink the garage.
COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Just wanted to put it on the table.
COMMISSIONER MAY: I don't think we want to get into giving specific direction.
I wouldn't be comfortable doing that.
COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Me either.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HART: Second.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: It has been moved and seconded.
All in favor of the revised EDR COMMISSIONER DENIS: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a comment.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Quickly.
COMMISSIONER DENIS: As I had occasion to note on a previous matter sometime ago, in a former
life I had the honor of representing these beautiful communities in a totally different
capacity.
I think that the citizens here and those we speak for should feel very good about the
impact that they've had on the process at this level and at the county level.
Also, by coincidence, I'm wearing a button that says I still like I want folks to know
that was actually intended for the Eisenhower Memorial that is also a matter before this
Commission and not necessarily refers to our fine county executive for whom I also have
equally high regard.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: It has been properly moved and seconded, the revised EDR.
All in favor say aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no?
COMMISSIONER: No. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: One no.
Thank you very much.
That got a thorough review.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: We are now up to agenda items 5C and 5D.
These, I believe, are the last two matters to vote on.
We'll do separate votes.
It will be presented as one whole.
We will have to do separate votes on 5C and 5D.
We still have Mr. Hinkle with us.
MR. HINKLE: Me again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you mentioned, these are two separate votes, one presentation.
Typically the Commission does not review campus plans within the District of Columbia.
That is a purview of the District's Zoning Commission.
However, we have a unique case in that the property is still titled under the United
States Government.
There was historically a transferred jurisdiction from GSA to the District which requires the
Commission to review the Master Plan and approve it.
That's why that is in front of the Commission today.
In terms of the student center, that's just being reviewed as a District project outside
of the central area.
What I'll do is I'll run quickly through the campus plan and the student center and give
you a project analysis that covers both and then go to the staff recommendations.
On to the campus plan.
The University of the District of Columbia is located in Northwest Washington along Connecticut
Avenue at Van Ness Streets and Connecticut Avenue on this map.
It runs right there.
This is Van Ness Street.
It's surrounded by a real mix of uses.
On Connecticut Avenue there's significant retail office as well as multi family development.
Then on the west and south sides of the campus is the International Chancery Center.
Then there are some single family residential neighborhoods on some of the other sides.
The University is currently implementing a long range program to transition this campus
into a selective admission four year institution.
What they have done is moved out their community campus functions to other locations throughout
the District.
The key features of the Master Plan include the construction of a new student center,
construction of student housing, specifically about 600 beds, and then the renovation and
improvements to the campus in terms of substantially greening some of the landscaping as well as
some of the other existing buildings.
Again, I just wanted to point out that typically campus plans are reviewed and approved by
the District's Zoning Commission.
They did approve the campus plan that was submitted here in June of this year.
In terms of federal interest, the University was initially established by Congress back
in the early '70s.
At this site is the Washington Technical Institute.
As I mentioned, there was a site transfer of jurisdiction between GSA and NDC in 1973.
One of the major issues that we'll talk about today is its adjacency to the International
Chancery Center.
Real quickly running through the Master Plan, what was completed was a zone plan.
As you can see on the illustration it is an academic zone, ardent culture zone, campus
infrastructure zone, athletic zone.
I want to note the student housing and athletic zone and the student center zone.
The student housing and athletic zone was intended to provide some flexibility in terms
of where you can locate student housing on what is currently the athletic fields in this
area.
So that's why it's stretched so large and yet you do see a standard regulation size
soccer field outlined.
It shows that there's a combination of uses that can be established in this zone.
Other elements of the campus plan is some greening initiatives.
Dennard Plaza which is the primary plaza within the campus has been redeveloped into greener
space.
Then you can see here some proposals to green some existing structures.
Then this diagram is also showing the student center which has some green features.
There is a way finding strategy also proposed within the campus plan.
I won't get into details on this but it is there.
Then also there's some landscaping and kind of perimeter improvements that are being proposed
with various phases.
That essentially is the main gist of the campus plan.
In terms of the student center, it's being proposed in the existing plaza at the corner
of Connecticut Avenue and Van Ness Street.
This is an illustration of the proposal.
It includes the main entry right off of a smaller plaza.
Kind of a grand staircase, if you will, up to the Dennard Plaza, the main plaza of the
University.
Fairly straightforward.
Part of its program was to provide the University with some sort of symbol so you see the clock
tower there.
Real quick, this is a site overview as well as the rooftop plan.
There's green roofs being proposed on a portion of the facility.
Surrounding it there's new landscaping along Connecticut Avenue.
You can see the proposed plaza out front.
Some improvements to the upper plaza in this location and a rain garden between the new
structure and the existing school building.
One of the features guiding the development of the student center was an existing WMATA
easement.
The Van Ness Metro station is located here.
The Metro line runs along Connecticut Avenue.
What you see outlined in blue is an easement that the building had to respect and build
around.
This is the Connecticut Avenue level just to give you some idea of the program inside.
There's a proposed food service or restaurant in this location.
Convenience store here.
Those were located to allow the public to utilize those facilities and actually enhance
kind of the retail use that occurs along Connecticut Avenue.
This is Dennard Plaza level plan.
What's important is you see this grand staircase bringing you up and providing access to some
of the other academic buildings on the site.
This is an illustration of the building from Connecticut Avenue and Van Ness Streets.
This is Connecticut and Van Ness.
This is a view out towards Connecticut Avenue from Dennard Plaza and just a few other illustrations.
This is looking down the rain garden.
This is the proposed structure.
This is the existing academic building.
This is looking back up towards Van Ness Street.
And, of course, the main entryway.
In terms of project analysis, the plan appropriately capitalizes on the mixed uses on Connecticut
Avenue through the placement of the student center.
It does provide a new symbol for the University with the student center.
There is a proposal within the plan to adhere to some fairly high standards.
This is a sustainable design and then it really does leverage its location atop the Metrorail
station and the other transit options in the area.
My analysis focuses on the student headcount, the transportation, as well as the student
housing.
Just real quick to give you an idea what's included in the plan is a gap on the student
headcount.
When the site was initially developed it was built for 8,000 full time equivalent students.
This is a calculation based on course credits, not necessarily a headcount.
You can see historically the full time equivalent numbers on this table.
2010 we have a number close to 2,300 students.
What was proposed when the Commission saw a concept of this campus plan back in May
was a full time equivalent cap of 8,000 and a headcount of 10,000 which is a count of
actual students.
What is being proposed and what was approved by the Zoning Commission back in June is the
full time equivalency of 5,000 students and a total headcount of 6,500 students.
Then just to note that staff and faculty aren't being proposed to expand.
In terms of transportation, the strategy of the University was really to take advantage
of its location adjacent to the Metrorail and the number of bus routes that occur there,
as well as the opportunities to walk and bike to the campus.
There were some pretty robust transportation reports completed.
In terms of transportation and traffic and parking, that discussion occurred quite significantly
during the Zoning Commission hearings.
It was determined through that process that actually the school, I believe, is doing the
right thing.
However, there was a lot of discussions in terms of enhancing what was proposed at the
time in terms of the transportation management plan.
And just a few things that the school agreed to and that was approved by the Zoning Commission
was a prohibition from students parking on the residential streets and the University
has made a commitment in ways that they can police that.
Also to prohibit students that would reside on the campus to park in the garage.
The University is encouraging visitors to use transit or park in other garages in the
area.
The University suggested the parking rates within their garage to discourage people parking
in there.
Those are a few of the items that were discussed and approved by the Zoning Commission back
in June.
Just real quick I just wanted to show you the availability of parking on the site.
There is one large garage here.
It's approximately 750 spaces.
The University also owns a building along Connecticut Avenue that has access to 100
additional spaces.
This building was not included in the campus plan, however.
The University also has access to additional spaces of the Days Inn.
What this means is while the comprehensive plan doesn't really provide guidance on university
campuses in terms of parking, I just wanted to compare what is there to what our comprehensive
plan says in terms of parking for employees.
If you take the available 914 spaces in the existing student count as well as the staff
and facility.
There currently is a parking ratio of one space for every 4.35 students and employees.
Looking out at 2020 if the campus reached its goal for headcount and number of students,
that ratio would actually improve significantly so that is one parking space for every 7.32
students or full time staff and faculty.
Getting to student housing, again what is being proposed is a flexible area to provide
student housing of 600 beds in this area.
The biggest concern is its adjacency to the embassies within the international Chancery
Center.
What we have here is the Chinese Embassy here, the Pakistani Embassy here, the Nigerian Embassy
here.
I believe this is the Egyptian Embassy here.
What we don't have to evaluate is sufficient information to understand how the location
of the housing within that zone would affect the Chancery Center.
I just wanted to point out a couple photographs to give you an idea of how close we're talking
about here.
This is Van Ness Street and the University library is right to this side of the photograph.
What is being proposed is student housing in this lot right here.
This is the portion of the Chinese Embassy and you can see the Pakistani Embassy just
behind the trees there.
Just another photograph a few steps up the street.
Again, the student housing zone is here outlined by the trees and the fence.
Immediately across the street you see the Pakistani Embassy.
The University did so an analysis of options in terms of placing the student housing within
this zone.
I am showing you one option here but I did want to show the Commission that there is
some thoughts in terms of how the student housing could be structured in this area.
There is an analysis in terms of height, bulk, location, those sorts of items.
However, the Department of State in our consultations came back to us and said this is insufficient
information to provide any sort of security assessment.
What we are asking for is more complete plans and through consultations with the Department
of State allowing them to do a full security assessment, provide that information back
to staff here so that we can make an analysis and make a recommendation to the Commission.
Based on that at this point staff was not able to staff is actually recommending deferring
any sort of action on the student housing on the site simply because we don't have sufficient
information.
That information primarily is a security assessment that needs to be completed by the Department
of State.
With that said and, again, you have two actions before you.
One is related to the campus plan and one is related to the student housing.
In terms of the executive director's recommendation on the campus plan it said the Commission
approved the University's campus plan for use by the Commission in future reviews of
individual site and building projects but noting that the Commission will defer action
on the proposed student housing and athletic zone until additional information on the site
plan and design of the student housing is available to allow the Department of State
to conduct a security assessment of potential impacts on the student housing on the embassies.
We also want to commend the University on its efforts to green its campus and improve
the streetscape and add community oriented retail along Connecticut Avenue.
The executive director also recommends that the Commission note that there is support
to develop student housing on the Van Ness campus and that with the additional security
information provided by the Department of State following their analysis that the Commission
will be able to assess the degree to which the student housing may impact the embassies
within the Chancery Center during its subsequent review of the student housing project.
The Commission request that the applicant coordinate closely with NCPC staff and the
Department of State throughout design development of the student housing, as well as any enhancement
to the campus perimeter adjacent to the International Chancery Center.
I would also note that if the University decides to locate the student housing elsewhere following
this analysis, other than what is currently depicted in the Master Plan that additional
analysis be required in order to allow NCPC to meet its obligations under NEPA as well
as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
So that's the action related to the campus plan.
In terms of the student center, the executive director's recommendation is to approve the
preliminary site building plans for the new student center.
That concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Hinkle.
So we have two votes before us.
The first vote will be on the campus Master Plan and the second vote will be on the student
center.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Excuse me.
Excuse me.
Ms. Brenda Veihe Naess.
As you are representing a residents association you have five minutes.
MS. VEIHE NAESS: Yes, Van Ness Street Residents Association.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Forward and back.
Let me try this first.
Okay.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
I appear on behalf of the Van Ness Street Residents Association which represents the
80 households on the three blocks between Reno Road and Wisconsin.
We worked with neighbors and surrounding streets in preparing our comments.
The Van Ness North Cleveland Park area is comprised of duplex and single family homes
Okay, hearing no other discussion, thank you very much, and we are adjourned.