About : standard furniture kathy ireland collection
Title : standard furniture kathy ireland collection
standard furniture kathy ireland collection
chairman bryant: okay. welcome. this is thenational capital planning commission's july 11, 2013 meeting.if you would please, please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance.again, welcome. i do note that today's meeting is being live-streamed on the ncpc website.we do have a quorum and the meeting is now called to order and we will proceed with theagenda as has been publicly noticed and advertised. chairman bryant: agenda item no. 1 is thereport of the chairman. chairman bryant: and i only have one itemto note and that is to remind my colleagues here of the july 24th, 10:00 a.m., specialworkshop on the height act. so you have been previously notified. please, make sure thatjuly 24, 10:00 a.m. to noon, is on your calendars
for the commission work session on the heightact study and it will be right here. agenda item no. 2 is the report of the executivedirector, mr. acosta. mr. acosta: thank you, mr. chairman, and goodafternoon. just piggybacking on the height act discussion,as you note in front of you, there is a series of public meetings that we are going to haveon phase 2 of our height act study. you will hear a bigger presentation later today bydavid zaidain and also at our july 24th meeting, but we would like to invite members of thepublic to attend these public meetings. they will be held between august 3rd and august13th. you can go to our website and you'll find out more information about details andlocations of these meetings. we also invite
our commissioners to attend these meetings,too. i know that many of you attended the phase1 meetings and i hope they were very instructive in terms of getting information from the publicand also hearing their views. i would also like to thank the commissionfor -- commissioner hart, wright and tregoning for attending the june 20th and 21st meetingthat we had with the national academy of science infrastructure board. they have convened apanel of experts to provide advice on infrastructure projects and governance in the southwest ecodistrict. we also were joined by members of gsa andthe mayor's office and other federal and local agencies to discuss how to move this projectforward. i think the results were very interesting
and good and we will report more about theconclusions of that at a future meeting. i would like to make some personnel announcements.first, we would like to welcome back john william carroll. he is a returning summerintern from the district of columbia summer youth employment program. he is a rising juniorat the university of oklahoma majoring in meteorology. and he will assist with the agency'srecord management program. i would also like to welcome back a communityplanner, sarah moulton, who will be working -- who will re rejoining our physical planningdivision. and finally, i would like to announce thatdavid zaidain who has been with the commission since 2002 is leaving ncpc tomorrow to becomeamtrak's project director for its union station
redevelopment project.as you know, david has worked on our comprehensive plan update and height of buildings masterplan. we thank david for his very important contributions to the commission and wish himall the best at his new position at amtrak. so congratulations to david.mr. acosta: he will also be presenting today, so we will get an opportunity to say our farewells.so anyway, that concludes my report. thank you.chairman bryant: thank you, mr. acosta. and we, too, will miss david very much. he hasbeen here for 10 years and done excellent work. i'm pleased others are recognizing hisprofessionalism and i look forward to continuing to cross paths in your new role. we will missyou.
agenda item no. 3 is the legislative updateand, ms. schuyler. ms. schuyler: thank you, mr. chairman. i havethree items which i would like to report. the first is house of representatives bill588, which i have been discussing with you off and on for the past few months.this is the house bill that would allow donor recognition inside the vietnam veterans visitorcenter. this particular act was passed on may 6th by the house and sent to the senate.when it reached the senate, the senate passed a substitute bill which broadened the topicto generic donor recognition and standards and that would be applicable to all commemorativeworks. when the house -- when the senate sent itsversion back to the house, the house rejected
that and they reinstated its original billand at the same time created a free-standing bill, a second bill which is hr 2297, thatwould address the generic -- the issue of generic donor recognition.yesterday the senate passed this version, so, therefore, the bill is on its way to thepresident. and again, this bill will allow donor recognition at the vietnam visitorsmemorial center only. now, the other free-standing bill which wouldaddress general donor recognition provisions for all has been introduced, as i said, hr2297, and this has been referred to-- i'm sorry, senate version -- i'm sorry.hr 2395 and it has been sent to committee and we are being advised that the committeeexpects to hold a hearing on it this month.
commissioner may: can i --ms. schuyler: peter, you perhaps would like to --commissioner may: i just want to add that hearing has been scheduled for the 19th.ms. schuyler: okay. okay. the second bill is senate version -- senate 1046, known asthe native american veterans memorial amendment act of 2013. and what this is proposing todo is to amend a 1994 act to allow the construction of a native american veterans memorial onthe property of the national museum of the american indian versus under the current lawit is restricted to a location in the interior of the museum.this has been referred to committee and it reflects similar bills that have been introducedin previous sessions of congress.
the last bill is hr 2297 which is the nationalmall revitalization and designation act. this was introduced by representative eleanor holmesnorton. she has done so in the last three congresses. and what this would do is authorizencpc to designate and modify the boundaries of the national mall, the reserve area thatare available for the location of commemorative works.that has been referred to the committee on natural resources and its subcommittee onpublic lands and environmental regulation. chairman bryant: thank you. any questionsor comments for ms. schuyler? hearing none, thank you very much.chairman bryant: agenda item no. 4 is the consent calendar. we have two items on theconsent calendar.
item 4a is the building modernization andexpansion project at the consumer financial protection bureau headquarters.agenda item 4b is phase 2 of the russell road widening project at marine corps base quantico.chairman bryant: the information has been before you. are there any questions on these,either of these two consent items? commissioner hart: i had a question on therussell road widening. i didn't see any discussion about stormwater management, siltation controls.are there any improvements that are associated with stormwater management, because this liesimmediately adjacent to significant wetlands. ms. saum: mike weil is the project officerand he is out today. my recollection is that that was all addressed in the -- this is phase3 of a multi-phase project and that all the
stormwater management was handled as partof previous submissions, but i can review that again and get back to you.commissioner hart: yeah, on the drawings that were included in the package, the limits ofdisturbance didn't seem to include anything other than the road widening and sidewalks.ms. saum: that's my understanding is that it is not going to affect the wetlands thatare adjacent to the road. commissioner hart: it's surprising becauseyou are doubling the impervious area through there.ms. saum: well, the wetlands are on the, my understanding, south side of the road andall of the widening is being done on the north side of the road, if my recollection servesme properly so that they won't have to disturb
the wetlands. and they are -- there is -- as i said before, when i -- when mike andi met with the applicant to review all the drawings.we did see stormwater management material that was included in the drawings. it maynot -- all the discussion of that may not be included in the edr, but we can go therewith you afterwards if you care -- commissioner hart: i would appreciate it.if that's the case, that's fine. i just didn't see anything in the write-up.ms. saum: yes. commissioner hart: thank you.chairman bryant: any other questions on either consent agenda item?hearing none, is there a motion on the consent agenda? it has been moved and seconded.all in favor say aye.
all: aye.chairman bryant: opposed no? consent agenda is passed.moving to the action items. agenda item no. 5a is the department of commerce, herberthoover building site improvements and perimeter security, not a new topic. then we have mr.walton. mr. walton: so good afternoon, mr. chairmanand members of the commission. today gsa has submitted the herbert hoover building forpreliminary and final site development plans and perimeter security design.the hoover building houses the headquarters for the department of commerce as well asthe white house visitor center along the north side of the site along pennsylvania avenueand the proposed national aquarium relocation
on the south side of the site along constitutionavenue. i'll start with some background. so as youknow, the site is located here in the federal triangle between 14th and 15th streets andconstitution avenue and pennsylvania avenue on what might be the longest site in the cityof nearly a quarter mile in length. since the revised concept submission, gsahas completed a supplemental environmental assessment, received a finding of no significantimpact. they have also completed a section 106 historic preservation review and havea signed memorandum of agreement with the consulting agencies.gsa has taken a two-layer approach to the perimeter security design with the first layerto provide the appropriate balance between
the need to accommodate perimeter securityfor the building and its occupants and a second layer maintaining the vitality of the publicrealm, to provide security within the context of streetscape enhancements and public realmbeautification. so these images represent the existing conditionsaround the perimeter of the hoover building. and as you can see, it is in need of someupdate. so at the revised concept submission in february,gsa asked or and received approval to place security elements within the public space.this was in an effort to improve the pedestrian experience along the almost quarter mile lengthof 14th and 15th streets. the updated elements include bollard designand security walls, cable rail fencing systems,
bike racks, collapsible concrete and plantersand low impact development. the commission had several comments relatedto different aspects of the security design. those comments were related to the point-loadedcollapsible concrete, sidewalk curb cuts, the visual impact and the scale of those curbcuts along 14th and 15th streets, assurance that placing security elements within a publicspace would, indeed, create a better pedestrian experience and incorporating a bus shelter,a shelter as part of the security design elements, and variation and design of the low impactdevelopment. i'll go over how gsa has addressed each ofthese comments within the context of the perimeter of security, starting with the pedestrianexperience along 14th and 15th street.
so no both the north and south ends of 14thand 15th street, gsa has proposed cable rail fencing as perimeter security. the fencingis located between the curb line and the building yard along the sidewalks as shown here withthe solid red lines and here. the cable rail fencing is designed to meetthe required level 4 security rating and since the revised concept submission has been simplified,design material will be more consistent with ddot's streetscape design guidelines.the elements within the building yard are designed to be more consistent with the existingbuilding. at eight areas around the perimeter of thesite, there is an overlap between the security walls and the cable rail fencing. this overlapcreates additional security and it is here
where gsa had proposed the collapsible concrete,but has since removed it. the thought is is that it would be difficultfor cars to maneuver in between the security wall and the fencing and into the buildingyard. gsa has also provided lead-walks, which arewide openings between lid to allow pedestrians to exit cars and entry into the sidewalk area.these lead-walks are an access with conversational seating nodes and are located within the buildingarea. in addition, gsa has provided bike racks assecurity elements at both ends of 14th street. and so it's a combination of all these elements,the bike racks, the fencing, the security walls, the street trees and the lead-walksas well as the seating nodes that create a
greater and more enhanced pedestrian experiencealong both 14th and 15th streets. along constitution avenue, the proposed nationalaquarium relocation has been approved at the concept level and that includes bollard designsand ramp systems, signage and security fencing as shown here. it will be located here withinthis blue bubble at the bottom of the plan. however, funding isn't available for the aquariumat this time. and so gsa has proposed placing cable railfencing and security walls within the building yard as shown here, which is similar to whatis being proposed at 14th and 15th streets. cars go into the site from the 14th and 15th-- into the 14th and 15th street parking lots via these pop-up style vehicle barriers shownhere on the right. these replace the elements
shown on the left. these elements are similarto those currently being used at the national gallery of art and the state department.the areas here, the dotted red line shows the location of those vehicle barriers andplan. the space between the barriers would be protected by bollards.the commission also had concerns about the scale or the size of the openings and curbcuts along 14th and 15th street. as you can see, these are pretty wide openings here.and i'll ask you to take a note of where the location of these medians is because the commissionalso had concerns about the visual impact of cars parking within these curb cuts. youcan see the cars that pull right up to the edge of that median.and so gsa has responded by taking these existing
median strips here and extending those outto the curb line here. so that eliminates the parking problem. they have also landscapedthese curb cuts into these median strips, so the -- it enhances the public realm andalso makes the pedestrian experience a little better.at the white house visitor center, these existing lawn panels have been extended north and arenow in line with the existing planter beds located here. now, these planter beds arecurrently at-grade planter beds, but as part of that design, those will be extruded upto create raised planter beds. they will be constructed of reinforced concreteand clad in granite with seating on either end near the entrance. there will be a rowof bollards that are integrated with the existing
light standards, which will be reinforcedto serve as security elements as well as across the entrance.there is a slight slope along pennsylvania avenue between 14th and 15th street. and soas you can see, the planter beds dip gently down towards the entrance of the building.at the main entrance on 14th street, the planter beds that flank either side of the main entranceplaza will be extended. they will also be extruded up to create raised planter beds.they will also be constructed of reinforced concrete, clad in granite with bench seatingon all four sides. as you can see, there is a row of bollardsacross the existing entrance plaza. in the revised concept, those bollards were of agrayer, sort of silver with anodized aluminum
color with flagpole shifted slight back offabout 10 feet. the current design, you can see the flagpoles are now in line with theexisting bollards. they are sleeved over bollards to create security elements themselves andthe bollards are now a black anodized aluminum to match other elements around the perimeterof the site. so along 14th and 15th street along with thereplacement of some street trees here, some plan will be integrated into a low impactdevelopment system, an lid, which is a current infrastructure system. the lid will be integratedinto the existing curb line creating some modifications to allow storm water to enterinto the tree planting area, capturing and storing stormwater for both the street andfrom the site.
now, this approach reduces the load on theexisting stormwater and sewer system during storm events, the design of the lid also andincreases -- decreases the impervious surface around the perimeter of the building by 16percent and exceeds the ddoe stormwater retention standard by 67 percent.with that, the executive director recommends that the commission approves the preliminaryfinal site development plans for the site improvements and perimeter security at thehoover building and notes that should the concept design come back in for the nationalaquarium that the preliminary -- that perhaps we need to return to ncpc for preliminaryand final review. mr. chairman, that concludes my presentation.we have members of gsa here, suzy hill as
well as representatives from rtkl, the designfirm. chairman bryant: terrific. thank you, mr.walton. this has been a model project as it has progressed over the various stages. questionsor comments from the commission members? ms. wright?commissioner wright: well, you know, i have to beat my chest a little bit.chairman bryant: please do. commissioner wright: and mostly say thankyou. we have had -- it has been a long strange trip, but we are very proud of the results.and i think the design team and my group at opdq and the department of commerce shouldall be congratulated for their, if nothing else, patience and persistence.and for my friend and colleague, mr. hart,
i just want to make sure that you noticedthe stormwater, that we have surpassed the stormwater management requirement by 32 percent.did you read that? commissioner hart: unopposed.commissioner wright: okay. good. so a couple of other notes. one, on the tiger trap, donot despair for those of you who are really fond of the idea. do you remember the colorfulconversation we had about courses? well, there is a tiger trap similar to theone we were looking to install in battery park city, i think. and it had -- it was at15,000 pounds. well, that's a little much for us. so we didn't have time to do the engineeringand the testing and the certification, but never fear, we have the rest of the federaltriangle to figure it out, because this is
the first building and we have -- we are movingon with irs, justice and epa forthwith, but this was the important thing to get rightand i think we did. we can argue over the more subjective qualitiesof the design and i'm anxious to hear from you, mr. may, about whether or not you thinkwe hit the target on improving the public space and the pedestrian experience.we think we did. we can -- there is a lot to debate about that, but there are certainlyobjective measures here that we are pretty happy to have hit. so thank you for your indulgence,everyone. my chest beating is over. chairman bryant: mr. may, would you like toreturn volley? commissioner may: no. i'm very happy withthe end result. i do have a couple of questions,
but i do want to particularly note that thenon-tiger trap solution and overlaying the layers of security is a way of meeting thesecurity requirements for the building. i'm very pleased to know that that has worked,because, you know, that's one of the concerns that i had is that, you know, we would be-- we would want to pursue this because of the prospect of having the sidewalk conditionunobstructed by bollards, but we wind up with bollards anyway. and i am glad that we havenot wound up with bollards and i plan to use this whenever i can to point out to our securitypeople that there are ways to solve this, probably like this without having to use bollardsin the public space. so and overall, i mean, everything else withthe project, i think, is quite fine. i'm very
pleased with where it has wound up.i do have a question. would you mind bringing up the images of the curb cuts and the drivewaysand all of that? because i was particularly concerned about that. and i saw it all soquickly that, i'm not sure i fully understand everything.mr. walton: that's the existing condition and that's the proposed.commissioner may: okay. could you go back to the existing condition for a second again?yes, see, it's just very hard to see that, but i know what it looks like in real-life.and then if you could flip slowly through the other photos?mr. walton: okay. so the proposed is -- commissioner may: well, hold on. so in thiscase, what we are actually seeing are people
parked across the sidewalk. so it is well-beyondthe -- commissioner tregoning: right. the bollardsare further interior to the -- commissioner may: no. i think that there arejust vehicles stacked up. let's go to the next. is it the next one? no, you had an imageof -- there we go. oh, so maybe that is exactly what it was, they were just lined up rightthere. mr. walton: right. they will park where thelady is walking next to the building. commissioner may: right. so it's unfortunatewe don't have a view like this that shows what they are planning to do. do you haveanything like that? mr. walton: i've got a plan that shows --commissioner may: okay. so we will look at
that more carefully.commissioner tregoning: you have another image though of the plan, that's the listing.mr. walton: no, this is the proposed. commissioner tregoning: this is the --commissioner may: it's the proposed. mr. walton: it's the proposed.commissioner tregoning: -- proposed? what's the listing?commissioner wright: that's not right. because the curb doesn't come out in the -- all theway to the sidewalk edging in the existing conditions.mr. walton: right. commissioner wright: the median, we do notcall it a median. commissioner may: yes, so i'm not sure whatwe are seeing with all of those break-lines,
you know, between the parts of the image.mr. walton: i guess if we can go back to the overall. whoops, wrong way. here.commissioner may: okay. so if i understand correctly, in the red box there we are goingto see two fairly lengthy islands of green, right? i'm looking at the south of the lowerimage, the lower side. mr. walton: the lower?commissioner may: so we are going to see two fairly large islands of green there? and thenthe bollard line that crosses. there is going to be bollards in the middle of that or isthe island itself going to provide the security? what are we going to experience when we walkdown the sidewalk there, i guess? chairman bryant: please identify yourself.mr. cornell: good afternoon. my name is brian
cornell. i'm the landscape architect withrtkl associates working with gsa and the department of commerce on this particular effort.the proposed information as you are seeing in front of you, we will seek out as we haveextended the outer most edge of the curb of the existing islands so that they align withthe island and now aligns with the base of the curb on either 14th or 15th street.we are still providing a level pedestrian -- we are now providing a level pedestriansidewalk elevation consistent along the entire length of both 14th and 15th street eliminatingthe need for handicap ramps that take you from the sidewalk pedestrian level down tothe vehicular level. so in a sense, we are almost creating a speedreducing device for vehicles that are entering
from 14th and 15th street to be queued upto go through security before they enter into the courtyard.the intent is the extended or the extended component of the island would be a plantedsolution. it would be set behind or above the existing roadway surface, the height tothe typical curb. so it would be set up about 6 inches.commissioner may: and then just the line of security is provided by bollards within thatarea? mr. cornell: oh, yes, i'm sorry i missed that.okay. what we are doing is we are running the -- the vehicular barriers are placed atthe property or the building or aligned with the building yard line. and then in betweeneach of those vehicular barriers, which obviously
are positioned in the vehicular drive, weare looking at a single -- i think we are looking at a run of three or four bollardsbetween each of those barriers. the intent there is to provide the officerswho were providing the security screening operations with the most flexibility and beingable to navigate throughout this area. commissioner may: and there will be a guardbooth in there somewhere as well? mr. cornell: that is correct. there is a guardbooth that is actually existing, but there are guard booths at each of the --commissioner may: the existing will remain? is that what you are saying?mr. cornell: the existing will remain. we are looking at potentially relocating someof those guard booths within each area relative
to the -- to each drive as we start lookingat utility concerns and conflicts. commissioner may: okay.commissioner white: would you mind just going to the plan and pointing out what you aresaying? i think i'm following you, but -- mr. cornell: sure.commissioner white: -- can you show us actually on the plan?commissioner may: take a mike. chairman bryant: take a mike with you.commissioner wright: thank you. mr. cornell: all right. what we have doneis we have taken the proposed perimeter line. we are running and getting this, okay, lookingalong 15th street. we are running it from the building line where the perimeter linethen intersects one of the three existing
drives.we have positioned the vehicular barrier in line with that. between each of the vehicularbarriers, you can see there is a faint indication of, i believe there is, a grouping of threebollards between each of the vehicular barriers. as i have mentioned before, this was intentionalin order to provide the officers who, in this case, would be operating out of the guardbooth here, the greatest flexibility in terms of being able to move throughout and acrossor through this area and across the drives to screen the vehicles.and as i have mentioned earlier, what we have done is we have created a continuous pedestrianpathway outside of that perimeter line, both on 15th street and on 14th street so thatthe elevation, if you will, for the pedestrians
is a continuous experience, thereby eliminatingthe need for handicap ramps to get pedestrians down to the vehicular level, the drive level,only to bring them back up to the sidewalk level once they pass through this vehiculararea. and then lastly what we have done is currentlythe islands terminate just show of where the sidewalk area is. if you go back, you don'thave to, but in the photographs the vehicles that were parked at those -- in those photographsthe lanes of the existing island basically ends at the front of this van.what we are proposing is taking that existing curb line and extending it out so that italigns with the curb line or, in this case, along 14th street.the new section of island which exists between
the sidewalk and where that curb nose is,if we go back, will be planted. so this little crescent-shaped or half-circular area wouldactually be a planted solution. we are not looking at tying that into thegreen infrastructure system intentionally, because we feel that in order to keep vehiclesfrom coming up and driving through the planting area, obviously, the planting area would beraised up to prevent that from occurring. commissioner may: so if i understand you correctly,the screening will-- i mean, the officer in the booth there is going to come out to screenvehicles before they come through the gate, so they will be doing that in the ramp, ifyou will, up to the sidewalk? mr. cornell: that is correct.commissioner may: okay. and then there was
also something in the report about a prohibitionagainst parking in that area. is that right? did i understand that correctly that theyare going to change the policy and nobody is going to be parking there? suzy, can youcome up? ms. hill: right. suzy hill with gsa. yes,currently, it is illegal parking. and so they are illegally parking in public space andcommerce actually permits that with the employees. and so with this project, they will be eliminatingthat. commissioner may: okay.ms. hill: and they are fully aware of the need to eliminate that.commissioner may: okay. that's very good news. okay. so i am still like left wanting foran image of what this looks like, because
it sounds like you are hitting all the rightpoints, but there is nothing that sort of captures what that actually looks like. soi'm hoping that, you know, you have seen exactly what it looks like. you have seen images thatshow you what like in three-dimensions what that is going to look like?commissioner wright: yes. and where the cars --commissioner may: and you love it? commissioner wright: and this is not the designersdoing. chairman bryant: microphone.commissioner may: i understand. commissioner wright: we are going light onthat here. commissioner may: i understand.commissioner wright: but cfa has seen it and
is pointing to this project as a model projectto which they are referring -- commissioner may: i'm just asking if you haveseen it and -- commissioner wright: -- other clients.commissioner may: -- if you are happy with it.commissioner wright: yes, of course or i wouldn't --commissioner may: that's all. commissioner wright: -- i don't drag dogsinto here. commissioner may: she has been thumping herchest all day. commissioner wright: this is my pet project.i'm just as proud as i can be of it, because it took two runs at it to get here. so yeah,i have seen it. i love it.
commissioner may: a simple yes would havedone it. okay. thanks. commissioner arrington: mr. chairman?chairman bryant: yes. commissioner arrington: i'm encouraged thatthe commerce is going to try to do something about the parking. i think you better checkthe agreement that they entered into with a lot of employees, but i know a lot of themhave been given that as a part of their package that they be able to park and that is goingto be maybe some -- maybe a little pushback, but it's timely, because people are banginginto cars and doing all kinds of stuff in there. i happen to know because i've beena victim of some of that in the past. it's very good.chairman bryant: thank you. other comments
or questions? mr. provancha?commissioner provancha: thank you, mr. walton, for the presentation. i guess now the recordwill officially state that a government official has commented in a public domain that commerceis sanctioning illegal parking, so that's an issue.just one concern about the planters. will the combined height of the planter plus thevegetation now create a visual impediment for turning drivers in that they will havedifficulty egressing the building and being able to look in both directions as well ascrossing the sidewalk perhaps encounter pedestrians that are competing for the same space at thesame time? mr. cornell: as we move into the later designphase, including plant selection of which
will play a role, no, we will be looking atlow plant material that will not obstruct the view of drivers either entering from 14thor 15th street that would potentially impose an issue with not only pedestrians, but alsothe officers working those entries and then also will be low enough so that vehicles whoare exiting the hoover site will have a clear line of sight into either 14th or 15th street.commissioner provancha: very good. it looks like we first saw this project on march of'06 and so a short seven and a half years is a fast-track project in normal d.c. andncpc standard time. two other comments. one was about historicpreservation. it looks like gsa has identified 14 different buildings or properties or soforth that have -- the term is area of potential
effect. mr. walton mentioned that an mou hadbeen signed, that's great to -- adverse to address and mitigate these adverse effectsand some of them are listed including an archeological exploration of survey for the washington canalto look for artifacts. it appears that that survey has not yet beendone, but it is on the to-do list by the interested parties.ms. hill: yeah, and that will be during the construction phase.commissioner provancha: during construction? ms. hill: so they will be monitoring beforeconstruction starts. commissioner provancha: there is an incompletelist that refers to protection of historic features and the incomplete list includesmasonry, bronzework and landscaping. the concern
was while the internal elements of the secureperimeter are now all aluminum cladding and/or black anodized aluminum and they are internallyconsistent within the security perimeter, are they also consistent with any exteriormasonry and/or bronzework and/or landscaping? i couldn't really tell that as i was readingthe narrative or listening to the presentation --ms. hill: yeah and -- commissioner provancha: -- whether those featureshave been identified and -- ms. hill: yeah, the --commissioner provancha: -- they are going to be respected --ms. hill: yes. commissioner provancha: -- in the design.ms. hill: and so in terms of the stone that
is being used that is already at the site,the historic stone -- commissioner provancha: right.ms. hill: -- we will be working to match that. in effect, amy can probably answer that questionsbetter. commissioner provancha: let me clarify thequestion. for example, is there exterior bronzework that the black anodized aluminum securityelements are respectful of or is all the bronzework on the interior of the building and it's notof concern? ms. woodall: yes. my name is amy woodall.i'm the project architect with rtkl for this project. there are some exterior us 10b finishbronze elements on the building, so that's the statuary bronze. they are limited to lightfixtures that are wall mounted on the building
and then doors and door surrounds at the exteriorof the building. and we feel like the black anodized aluminumtreatment of the new security elements is sympathetic to both the ddot pallet of materialsand the statuary bronze that is on the existing building.and then as suzy mentioned, we are utilizing the stony creek granite which is the granitethat is found at the watertable base of the existing building. so that the new securityelements that are clad in stone will actually match the granite that is on the building.commissioner provancha: okay. great. in addition to the bronzework and the landscaping andthe masonry, what are some of the other historic elements that are being addressed under theterms of the mou for mitigation of adverse
impacts?ms. woodall: suzy, do you want to talk more about those? we are going to be doing someinterpretative side elements. there are several stone panels throughout the facade of thebuilding that describe, i think, some of the early agencies that made up the departmentof commerce, some of them are decorative in nature in terms of replicate -- or describinglike shields and agencies that were originally part of the department of commerce.others are quotes from some of the founding fathers of the united states. and so therewe will be hoping to incorporate technology and have a way to, you know, do a red laserscan on some of the elements that will take you directly to the department of commercewebsite that has inventory of some of these
interesting -- more interesting statuary elementsabout the exterior of the building. commissioner provancha: so the incorporationof these "tin plaques" and other site fixtures that are incorporated into the perimeter securityelements, that is the -- demonstrates respect for the existing historic panels? is that-- ms. woodall: right.commissioner provancha: is that the connection? ms. woodall: yes.commissioner provancha: okay. and the last question is just about holistic planning.as we know in d.c., we have an iconic landscape and urban planning, a tremendous amount ofhistoric preservation. the planning that we do has multiple impacts.unfortunately, many times adverse impacts
to the nature of our planning. for example,when we look -- i think we haven't quite hit that sweet spot between piecemeal and holistic.for example, if you cumulatively look at the effects of flooding, air pollution, helydon,tree canopy, transportation, stormwater management, perviousness or imperviousness, the pedestrianexperience, public infrastructure and now new challenges such as bikeshare, i thinkwe continue to do this in more, if you look at a scale, toward piecemeal than we do holistically,because i don't think that we are adding up and keeping score forestation, deforestationand those types of things. so my -- i heard a comment well, we will getit right when we look at the remainder of the federal triangle that was -- as opposedto a comforting comment, that was a little
bit troubling.commissioner wright: that's not what i said. that's not what i said.commissioner provancha: okay. please clarify. commissioner wright: what i said was thatwe will be able to by that time -- commissioner provancha: roll the tape, please.commissioner wright: -- we may be able to incorporate because we will have time to dothe engineering and the testing and the certification to use tiger traps to eliminate, we hope,still more of the bollards. commissioner provancha: gotcha.commissioner wright: that does not suggest that we haven't gotten it right here.commissioner provancha: gotcha. important distinction.commissioner wright: so --
commissioner provancha: thank you for clarifyingthat. commissioner wright: thank you. and i wouldlike to address the black -- the choice of the black finishes. it was very purposeful.and that's again a philosophical question in whether or not a 21st century additionto the building in the from of perimeter security needs to announce itself or needs to try andhide. and we made a very purposeful decision thatit couldn't hide and so this was yet another design decision made to help announce itselfas a very modern addition with a modern function. commissioner provancha: it seems like a veryreasonable compromise. you can go with the ornate high-maintenance, low-durability bronzematerials or you can go with more durable
or lower-maintenance. i think that's a goodcompromise. that's all the question. ms. woodall: if i may as well, looking atthe federal triangle in whole, the statuary bronze finish is not consistent as you moveeast toward department of justice. so we think that the black anodized aluminum is actuallya good solution for -- a good holistic solution for the federal triangle.commissioner provancha: okay. we will look forward to seeing that in future designs.chairman bryant: ms. tregoning? commissioner tregoning: just very briefly.i think it is a very admirable design and i think that you will be gratified to knowthat we will probably be returning to it over and over again as we look at other federalprojects and how they handle perimeter security
and stormwater management, in particular,and say why can't it be more like this project. so thank you.chairman bryant: sensing no further comments, would you, ms. wright, like to make the motionto approve this? commissioner wright: certainly.chairman bryant: so it has been moved and seconded.all in favor of the motion say aye. all: aye.chairman bryant: opposed no? congratulations. commissioner wright: nice.chairman bryant: agenda item no. 5b is the old post office building redevelopment at1100 pennsylvania avenue and we have ms. hirsch. ms. hirsch: good afternoon, mr. chairman andmembers of the commission. the general services
administration has submitted preliminary siteand building plans for the redevelopment of the old post office building. the old postoffice is located at 12th and pennsylvania in the federal triangle.the project site consists of the old post office building itself and the pavilion annex,which was constructed in the early 1990s in the courtyard of the irs building.to provide some context for the old post office, here you can see some historic and existingconditions of pennsylvania avenue. on the top is looking east towards the capitol andon the bottom is looking west. the building was built between 1892 and 1899and originally has the city post office as well as the post office department and thepost office postmaster general. and it was
designed in the romanesque revival-style.about 15 years after it opened, the city post office moved to its new location by unionstation and as implementation of the mcmillan plan was gearing up, it appeared that thedemolition of the building was imminent. it was of a different architectural-stylethan what was envisioned by the mcmillan plan for the federal triangle and so, therefore,it was dubbed "older," and it's the old post office.however, because it was a relatively new building and the government had invested quite a deal,a good deal of money into it, it was used for several decades to house various federalagencies. demolition permits were actually issued inthe 1970s of the building, but the don't tear
it down campaign as well as the efforts ofnancy hanks and others were influential in developing proposals for its adaptive reuse.in the early 1980s, the building underwent a major rehabilitation and opened as a mixeduse office and retail establishment. it was during this period that the congress bellswere installed in the tower and that an elevator was installed on the interior in order forvisitors to be able to visit the top of the tower.in here you can see some additional views of the site today. the lower left is a viewas you exit the federal triangle metro station, the existing c street plaza and the 11th streetplaza. the building is listed in the national registerof historic places and is a contributing element
to the pennsylvania avenue national historicsite. so to provide some background on the project.the old post office redevelopment act was passed by congress in 2008. in march of 2011,gsa issued a request for proposals. and in february of 2012 selected the trump organizationas the preferred selected developer. since selecting trump, gsa has been workingto negotiate a long-term ground lease with trump as well as comply with the nationalenvironmental policy act and section 106 of the national historic preservation act.gsa issued a finding of no significant impact in may of this year and also executed a programmaticagreement to address ongoing consultation under section 106 for the project as it movesforward.
in january of 2013, this commission providedcomments regarding the proposed zoning of the site noting that after the redevelopment,the property would remain federal -- under federal jurisdiction and, therefore, subjectto ncpc in lieu of zoning authority. so here you can see the proposed site planfor the project. through the redevelopment, the opo will be converted from a mix of officeand retail to a luxury hotel and conference center. retail establishments inside the buildingwill include fine dining, a spa as well as museum spaces. the clock tower will continueto be operated and open to the public. it will be operated by the national park servicethrough an agreement with gsa. two public plazas will be included in theproject, one to the north along pennsylvania
avenue and also one to the south along theformer c street right-of-way. in addition, the project proposes a driveway along theformer 11th street right-of-way to provide vehicular access to the site for taxis andlimos as well as to provide access to valet parking which will be in the basement forthe annex. so just to briefly summarize what the exteriormodifications that will be made to the property are, as i mentioned, the redevelopment ofthe pennsylvania avenue plaza in front of the building, the 11th street driveway, thec street plaza to the south, the 10th street entrance through the irs arcade will be openfor special events and then skylights will be added to the roof on the rear of the propertyas well as some signage along 12th street.
and i'll just briefly go into a little moredetail on each one of these. the main pedestrian point of entry for the hotel will be the pennsylvaniaavenue side where this plaza will be located. temporary non-fixed seating will be addedto the front of the building. however, no changes are proposed for either the benjaminfranklin statute or the special artwork pavers in the sidewalk.new signage will be installed in the center arch of the building as well as some new awningsfor the retail establishments in the hotel. cafes on the plaza will activate pennsylvaniaavenue, which will achieve a goal of the pennsylvania avenue plan from the 1970s and this is alsoconsistent with policies in the comprehensive plan as well as the monumental core frameworkplan.
public access in general to the building willbe improved as existing planners that are located in front of the building on pennsylvaniaavenue will be removed as well as security screening that is on the interior.so here you can see some views of the proposed driveway and the former 11th street driveway.this will serve as a pick-up and drop-off point for taxis and other vehicles comingto the hotel and it will also provide access to the valet garage that will be in the basementof the annex. there will be up to 150 parking spaces inthe annex. you can also see here the renderings of the proposed signage that will be placedin the driveway for the hotel. with the introduction of the driveway, the annex will also be renovated,as this will become the hotel's conference
center and grand ballroom.new steel and glass canopies are proposed for both the 11th street entrance to the oldpost office as well as the main entrance to the ballroom that you see here. the renovationof the annex also, i should note, includes a new green roof for stormwater managementand control and then a new exterior is also proposed for the annex.two treatments have been proposed. one is stone that you see here on the right and theother is glass. this is an additional view looking south from pennsylvania avenue. youcan see the driveway, the sign and then the renovated annex. and this is the option withglass. i just wanted to note that when cfa reviewedthis a few months ago, they expressed a strong
preference for the glass wall cladding andgsa is in the process of modifying the design in response to those comments.so with respect to the 11th street driveway, staff focused on the history of the site,and in this photo from 1900 on the left you can see the original block configuration thatopo originally sat on with 11th street to the east. and then the photo on the right,you can see that up until the late 1970s early 1980s, 11th street was open and functioningas a street. 11th street was formerly closed in the 1920swith the impending implementation of the mcmillan plan for the federal triangle, but it wasn'tuntil the rehabilitation project in the early 1980s and some subsequent site improvementsafter 1981 when the street was actually physically
closed.so staff's position is that the proposed driveway will reestablish the four-leg intersectionthat was historically present as well as the historic block configuration from the l'enfantplan. though there will be some disruption to the pedestrian circulation with the driveway,there will be a marked crosswalk and signalization and this will be clearly marked to minimizeany conflicts. in addition, gsa and trump will be continuingto work with the district department of transportation on the final design of the driveway includingthe signalization and any other needed improvements. so here you can see the proposed traffic movementfor the site. and staff wanted to quickly review through the ea and section 106 processthe other options that were evaluated for
vehicular entrance and traffic patterns forthe site and ultimately, why 11th street was chosen as the preferred option.so a lay-by lane was considered for pennsylvania avenue, but this would have required additionalcurb cuts on pennsylvania avenue and it also probably would have required some kind ofsemi-circular driveway. and this was not desirable by any of the consulting parties.a lay-by lane was also considered for 12th street. however, this would have impactedtraffic, the traffic flow along 12th street and, therefore, the district ddot was notvery supportive of that option. consideration was given to using the c street former right-of-wayin the rear of the property, however, but this would have eliminated -- you wouldn'thave been able to construct the public plaza
that is proposed and it would have also increasedthe traffic along 12th street. also using c street would have probably drawnactivity off of pennsylvania avenue and this was not seen as a desirable condition. also,just to note, the existing service drive off of 12th street on the c street right hereprovides entrance to the loading dock and that will continue to be used to service thehotel. finally, gsa did consider an option of noon-site parking, so just to have valets that would take the cars off-site. however, thatwould have generated a lot of traffic coming to and from the site and also there wouldhave been traffic impacts because there is no viable option really to install a lay-bylane around the site.
so based on these traffic considerations aswell as the historic preservation benefits of reestablishing the four-leg intersectionand the block pattern, staff is supportive of the driveway in this location.so to facilitate the driveway as well as the public plaza improvements along pennsylvaniaavenue, nps will be transferring jurisdiction of a portion of the sidewalk. this transferwill be subject to the commission's review and so, therefore, is part of our recommendation.staff is recommending that prior to or with the final plans for the project, that thetransfer of jurisdiction and any related covenants be submitted with the project.on the south side of the building, c street will serve as the primary entrance from visitorscoming from the national mall and the federal
triangle metro station. and here again, apublic plaza will be installed. temporary furniture will be placed in the plaza andadjusted seasonally. in addition, the bikeshed that you see hereon the lower left, this is non-original, so the building will be removed and the historicshed roof will be restored. now, here you can see some images of whatthe public plaza will look like as well as the restoration of the shed roof that i wasjust speaking about. so the removal of the bikeshed, the restorationof the historic shed roof and the activation of the plaza are again consistent with policiesin the comprehensive plan and the framework plan and this will enhance the public realmand improve the pedestrian experience.
staff notes that the signage proposed forthis corner at 12th and c street in this location down here does appear to be fairly large inscale and due to its configuration, may be blocking some views and therefore, we arerecommending that as the design is finalized, gsa and the developer continue to work withall stakeholders to make sure that the signage is scaled appropriately for the setting ofthe building. the original design of the annex is featuredin east/west connection from 10th street through the irs building arcade. however, since theclosing of the annex, this entrance has been locked. with the redevelopment project, thisentrance will be open during special events as an alternative to the entrance off of the11th street driveway.
and to mark when this entrance is open, temporarysignage will be placed by the building arcade. as i mentioned, the redevelopment also includesa proposal to install skylights in the roof off of c street in the southern portion ofthe roof off of 11th street. these historic photos indicate that at one time there werewindows in this location, but they have been subsequently covered over in different rehabilitationprojects. so the redevelopment project proposes to installskylights in the back portion of the building in order to provide additional light intothe guest rooms that will be located on the top floor of the hotel.so overall, staff supportive of the redevelopment project as it will rehabilitate a nationally-significanthistoric resource while establishing a premier
hotel and destination along pennsylvania avenuewith a mix of uses. the two public plazas will enhance the public realm and improvethe pedestrian experience of pennsylvania avenue and the federal triangle.and so with that, it's the commission's recommendation -- or the executive director's recommendationto the commission is to approve the preliminary site and building plans for the old post officeredevelopment; to adopt gsa's finding of no significant impact for the opo redevelopmentenvironmental assessment; and to request that gsa and the preferred selected developer continueto refine the designs for signage throughout the site; and to ensure that signage and canopiesare appropriately scaled and oriented to the setting of the old post office; and finallyrequires that the transfer of jurisdiction
to facilitate the introduction of a drivewayin the former 11th street right-of-way and to accommodate outdoor seating in front ofthe building, including the conditions for that transfer be submitted with or prior tothe submission of -- for final approval. chairman bryant: thank you, ms. hirsch.mr. may? commissioner may: i just have one questionabout the loading dock actually. i assume that that is a frontend-in/frontend-out andthere is room to turn around inside the building or something like that. is that how it works?ms. hirsch: right. so can i have the prism back? the trucks mentioned, they will pullin here. commissioner may: pull in, right.ms. hirsch: and then they back out. they back
this way in and then they come out this way.commissioner may: okay. and it's all -- i mean, that whole thing that's called loadingdock is enclosed? ms. hirsch: yes. well, enclosed?commissioner may: there is a roof over it? ms. hirsch: no, there won't be a roof overit. commissioner may: it's just a yard?ms. hirsch: yes. commissioner white: but you won't see it fromthe street. commissioner may: no.ms. hirsch: it's very difficult to see. commissioner may: no, but you will be ableto see it from the rooms and things like that. ms. hirsch: um-hum.commissioner may: so i was just curious about
what it was, because it wasn't clear fromthe drawing. and i assume that they are doing whatever they need. it's 17 feet wide. it'snot quite two-way traffic for trucks, so i assume that they are doing what they needto to make sure that you don't have trucks coming together and having to back out oneway or another. it's all about backing trucks in and out, but we want to avoid, so that'sall i wanted to comment on. commissioner wright: could i make a generalcomment first? chairman bryant: please.commissioner wright: so as jennifer was careful to point out, we are -- since this submissionwas put in, we have made considerable advances in design development, so you are seeing anold one. that's not necessarily germane to
the driveway plan, but just overall.and specifically with the annex design, we are -- and we will be checking in with thedesign team at 50 percent and 65 percent. a little bit unusual because of the timingof the next submission, which we hope will be in september.and one word on the signage. this has been the subject of much debate. so what we haveelected to do is wait, and to your point earlier, bradley, about a holistic look, there is alot going on on the site and a lot that the signage has to do and several different audiencesand users. so we are -- the views that you have seenare indicators. we also see the signage as a very important part of the architecturaldesign of the building and demarcations of
its various identities. so we are lookingat it all at once. so it has been -- people have gotten reallyworked up over this subject and we just want everyone to just recognize we are workingon it as a whole package and it will-- you will see it in toto as part of the final submission.and then the last is the 11th street right-of-way and the transfer is -- we are actively engagedwith the park service and working diligently to see that that is done on time, as in beforeseptember we hope. and that's all i have to say about that. thank you.chairman bryant: mr. provancha? commissioner provancha: appreciate your commentsabout the signage. that was of course one of the things that we wanted to ask about.it looks very -- for a "trump" property, it
is very low-key and subdued and less commercialthan we had thought. commissioner wright: i'm so not touching that.you know that. commissioner provancha: so i know that wasnot accidental. an example, some of the signage at the street level, i think, is exactly theright message. our question was about handicapped access.it appeared that there was a prominent ramp on the south side on the plaza, but couldn'tsee handicapped access. is it street level on the 11th street and 12th street sides?ms. hirsch: there is one right here on 11th street.commissioner provancha: okay. and what about pennsylvania avenue? it appears that the streetfurniture there constricts the entrance a
little bit. is there a handicap access onthat side of the building? ms. hirsch: there is no handicap access onthat side of the building now. commissioner provancha: no requirement to-- ms. hirsch: at this point.commissioner provancha: -- add that to that? ms. hirsch: i don't --commissioner provancha: i would be -- ms. hirsch: hany, would you like to --commissioner provancha: -- surprised if that was not --ms. hirsch: -- address your -- commissioner provancha: -- the case.ms. hirsch: -- constituency here? hany is from the project architect. i don't thinkthere is the possibility on pennsylvania avenue.
mr. hassan: good afternoon. my name is hanyhassan. i'm the architect principal with beyer blinder belle responsible for this project.first, i appreciate the positive comments that were made earlier. with respect to theimportance and the sensitivity of this building and the historic and architectural characterof it, particularly on pennsylvania avenue where there is multiple sets of steps thatrises up to the main level, we felt that any introduction to ramps or anything of thissort will impact the architectural character and the historic nature of this building andthe importance of pennsylvania avenue. so we elected to maintain the access ramp,which is existing today to the lower level on the 11th street. so to be accessible, wefelt that this is sufficient to enter the
building at that level. thank you.commissioner provancha: help us again to understand better the signalization and the new crosswalks.where are they located on the plan? ms. hirsch: here is the location of the newcrosswalk. commissioner provancha: yes.ms. hirsch: we don't have the details yet of the signalization. that is still to bedeveloped. this is only -- you have to remember, this is preliminary review. the signalizationwill come in subsequent review cycles. we don't have -- they will be working with thedistrict department of transportation on that. commissioner provancha: all right. that'sall the questions. thank you. chairman bryant: okay. anyone else? ms. white?commissioner white: sorry, can i ask a further
question of the architect with respect tothe handicap ramps? on the 11th street side, the handicap ramp that comes into the building,what are they entering into inside the building? does it go into the main lobby, so they getthe same experience as if they were coming in on pennsylvania? i'm just trying to understandwhat their experience is like entering the building.mr. hassan: they enter at the lower level, what we consider the lower level. it's sortof equivalent to first floor. there is a major stair that goes up to the main level, whichis also accessible to that level and it's all accessible to elevators throughout thebuilding on both sides, two banks of elevators on the east and west.commissioner white: and is it more of a public
entrance or is it sort of a backstage entrance?mr. hassan: no. it's a -- commissioner white: okay. so it will be agrand -- mr. hassan: absolutely. it's --commissioner white: okay. mr. hassan: -- a public entrance. and it isinteresting when you go to the site to 11th street that slide ramp, i mean, refer to itas a ramp. it's a very slight incline and it's very gracious and very approachable.commissioner white: thank you. mr. hassan: okay. thank you.chairman bryant: mr. miller? commissioner miller: thanks, mr. chairman.i just wanted to comment that this is a very exciting project that will do a lot to activatepennsylvania avenue and the south side of
pennsylvania avenue, in particular.one of the activities that currently though is that the project is -- that is at the siteis, which unfortunately has to be eliminated, the bike tour business, which gets a lot ofbusiness. but i understand why it is -- why that has to happen.but is there any, at this stage, discussion on where in the c street plaza or elsewherethere would be bike racks or capital bikeshare facility or is it too preliminary at thispoint? ms. hirsch: it's still very preliminary, buti know that ddot is working with gsa and trump in trying to identify where the bike rackswill be adjacent to the site. commissioner miller: okay. thank you.chairman bryant: thank you very much, ms.
hirsch. the edr is before you. is there amotion on the edr? participant: so moved.participant: motion. chairman bryant: it has been moved and secondedthat the edr be passed as presented. all in favor of the motion say aye.all: aye. chairman bryant: opposed no? it has passedand as noted, this is preliminary. we still have a ways to go and we look forward to morework on this project. item 5c is the phase 2 of the south campus,centrum, at the intelligence community campus in bethesda. we have mr. dettman. welcomeback. mr. dettman: thank you, mr. chairman.chairman bryant: i will also note that we
have two speakers signed up representing organizations,so they will be afforded five minutes each, but, mr. dettman, you're on.mr. dettman: thank you. and good afternoon. staff will be presenting today the final secondbuilding plans for, as the chairman indicated, the intelligence community campus-bethesda,south campus, centrum project. you will recall that the commission reviewedand approved the preliminary second building plans back in may of this year. you know fullwell by now that the 30-acre campus is located in bethesda, maryland. it is, approximately,three-quarters of a mile from the district line. it's a quarter mile east of the potomacriver, which is located to the west. between the site and the potomac river isnational park service land consisting of fairly
steeply-sloping land going down to macarthurboulevard, the clara barton parkway and the c & o canal national historic park.here is another aerial photo looking west towards the potomac river with a diagram downin the lower left where you can see the, you know, vertical differential between the siteand the potomac river, which is, approximately, as i said it was, a quarter mile. and overthat quarter mile distance about a drop of about 150 vertical feet.so on the west is the park service land. on the north is a local park as well as a privateschool. and in the -- on the east across sangamore road is a fairly large commercial retail plaza.and then surrounding the area is primarily moderate-density residential consisting ofthe majority of single-family detached homes
with some multi-family residential dispersedthroughout to the east. you know that the icc-b is being redevelopedfor purposes of serving the intelligence community and it is currently guided by a master planthat was approved by the commission in 2012. it splits the campus into two redevelopmenthalves, the north campus improvements and the south campus improvements.the north campus improvements are currently under construction and the south campus iscurrently getting underway with this first project with the centrum project. the centrumproject is a critical piece to the transformation of the south campus because it is intendedto kind of serve as the heart of the south campus in terms of the functional circulationand tying together these disparate poorly
connected buildings as well as the mechanicalcore of the whole south campus through shared mechanical systems.so here we are looking at the site plan of the centrum building project which is outlinedin red. it's about 130,000 square foot limits of disturbance, which is currently about 80percent impervious. the centrum building itself has a footprint of about 41,000 square feetand it will be spaced out along four levels, including a basement totalling about 225,000square feet. again, it's going to serve as the main circulationplan for the entire south campus and consistent office space for about 350 employees.in terms of the building amenities, it does contain the design -- the final design contains,approximately, a 3,600 square foot green roof,
which is located along the west side of thebuilding above the loading dock. it has a 20,000 gallon cistern for the capture of rainwater from the main centrum building roof, which is located at the basement of the building.in terms of site improvements, four plazas are being proposed. there is a main entryplaza that connects the visitor control facility to the main entrance on the north side ofthe centrum. there is a ceremonial entry plaza on the south side of the centrum which willtie into the existing historic landscape on the east side of erskine hall.there is an assembly court on the west side, which can be used for -- by the employeesduring lunchtime or whatever or graduation ceremonies to -- that is tied in with theeducational component of the intended program.
and then there was a wellness garden, a securedwellness garden on the north side of roberdeau, which i'll discuss in a moment.finally, there are some micro-bioretention areas for the handling of stormwater locatedon the east side of the centrum. here is looking at a rendering of the centrum.you can start to take a look at the height, massing and bulk of the building. the exteriorof the centrum is still intended to be clad in three different types of materials. thereis a locally-quarried slate material for the base. there is a combination of curtain -- glasscurtain wall as well as an aluminum panel system that has windows integrated in withit. the height of the centrum is about 60 feetabove-grade or 72 feet to the height of the
penthouse, which is still about 20 feet belowthe highest building on the site, which is erskine hall down on the south end.and so what -- this is the -- what i'll do is focus now quickly on the applicant's responseto the commission's preliminary report, which again was in may 2013.at that time, the commission approved the preliminary report and made a series of requestsfor the applicant to go back and more fully analyze some particular site and buildingplan modifications, including looking at refining the height and massing setbacks of the penthouses,looking at the surface area and the depth of the green roof, considering the expansionand the capacity of the cistern, expansion of the micro-bioretention areas, to eliminatethe wellness garden and especially the anti-climb
fence that secured that area and then finallyto look at the use of permeable pavements throughout all pedestrian pathways, courtyardsand plazas. the commission also requested a series ofinformation which the applicant has provided to staff in the final submission. the firstone was responses to the commission's recommended modifications and updated stormwater managementplan consisting of updated calculations pertaining to federal and state stormwater requirementcompliance, responses to the maryland -- montgomery county planning board review which we havereceived and was provided to you today as well as the applicant's response to thosecomments. and finally, a campus-wide stormwater managementplan which the commission wanted in order
to review individual site and building plans.finally, the commission encouraged the applicant to finalize the memorandum of understandingbeing worked on between defense intelligence agency and the national park service to addresshistoric off-site sedimentation erosion damage to park service land during the previous occupancyof the site. chairman bryant: just a quick question. ithas been the case and it continues to be the case that the stormwater management continuesto not just meet, but exceed requirements. mr. dettman: that's correct. i'll show yousome numbers. actually, i'll show you the numbers from the preliminary and then i'llshow you how those numbers actually change as a result of some reductions in impervioussurface.
with regard to analyzing the height, massand setbacks of the penthouses, the applicant took a close look at that and was able tomake some changes, which reduces the overall massing of the penthouse structures and thenumber. the applicant was able to eliminate a proposedstair tower on the north wing of the centrum and replace that with just a roof access hatchthat will sit below the building parapet wall. they also looked at the two main penthousestructures and were able to shrink the footprint a bit in order to again reduce the overallmassing of those structures. with regard to the setbacks because of thenarrowness of the centrum spine and the interior circulation, the north/south circulation,essentially, the building core or the vertical
circulation through the building has to eitherreside on one side or the other that made circulations fine. and so it does, it remainsalong the west side of the building up against these exterior walls.but again, their height is only about 12 feet high and given the vertical separation andthe horizontal distance to the potomac river and the national park service land, adverseviews of those penthouse structures were not intended at preliminary. they are not intendednow. with regard to looking at the design and theretention capacity of the green roof, the applicant continues to propose a 3,600 squarefoot green roof over the loading dock. they did look at whether or not a vertical expansionin order to increase its storage capacity
was possible because of cost constraints andthe structural constraints of the roof of the loading dock, that was not feasible.in addition for the same reasons, cost and the structural capacity of the centrum roofand project constraints, the applicant is not able to expand the green roof over tothe main building roof. however, as i noted, the 20,000 gallon cistern in the basementof the centrum is designed to capture water from the main roof and use it in the mechanicalsystems. with regard to the cistern remains 20,000gallons. the applicant did contemplate a larger greywater system, but, however, because ofthe space constraints inside the basement level, which you see here, the basement levelis not only just building systems, there is
some tenant -- there is some program spacedown there. there are some other buildings to support. so outlined in red is essentiallythe central mechanical plant, which has been dedicated -- that space has been dedicatedfor the utility areas of the building. and again, the central utility plant is goingto serve all of the buildings throughout the entire south campus, so space is fairly constrained.and so they have room for a 20,000 gallon cistern.in addition, they do have a projected greywater demand in order to feed the cooling towersand the other mechanical needs for the building and 20,000 gallons is that right capacity.anything in excess is, essentially, just capturing water for the sake of capturing water andeventually would make it into off-site or
into a municipal stormwater system anyway.another consideration was the life cycle cost and the extended payback period of doing alarger greywater system or a larger cistern. the applicant has indicated though that itdoes intend to continue to evaluate the opportunity for additional cisterns or and even greenroofs on the remainder of the south campus build-out.looking at the wellness garden and the anti-climb fence, the applicant did agree with the commissionon its elimination and instead looking at incorporating that type of programmatic elementwith -- throughout the entire landscape of the south campus.and so the wellness garden and the anti-climb fence has been removed. the wellness garden-- the removal of the wellness garden equates
to, approximately, a reduction of about 5,800square feet of impervious surface. and it turns that area into more porous or just agarden-type area. on the north plaza, the plaza area has beenreduced by about 3,400 square feet. they took a close look at that and were able to makethose adjustments. and so again, a further reduction in the amount of impervious surface.as well as down at the ceremonial entry court, the applicant reduced the amount of pavingthere by about 5,300 square feet. so in total, there is about another reductionof about 14,500 square feet of impervious surface. in addition to that, the applicantintends on any kind of paving that they do have is going to be an impervious paver withporous sand-swept joints in between the pavers,
so that will help with some additional infiltration.regarding stormwater management, the project continues to not only meet, but exceed thestate and federal regulations. under the mde regulations, this is considered a redevelopmentproject and the applicant is exceeding the requirements through accommodation of impervioussurface reduction and environmental site design. at preliminary, the proposal was looking atabout a 12 percent reduction in impervious surface and this doesn't include the additional14,500 square feet of impervious surface reduction that they identify between preliminary andfinal. they are relying upon the green roof and themicro-bioretention for achieving or exceeding its required retention bond. so you can seeat the bottom of this graph here, the amount
that they are required, given the limits ofdisturbance of this project, they are required to store -- at the preliminary level theyare required to store about 3,000 cubic feet of water.and they are retaining about 4,500 cubic feet of water. and with that additional reductionof impervious surface, it lowers the amount that they have to retain. and so the amountthat they exceed these requirements is even greater.and the same goes for the federal requirements under section 438 of the energy independenceand security act or eisa 2007, which under those regulations they are required to retainthe 95th percentile rainfall event. using a complex hydrologic model called the tr-55method, it turns out that they are required
under the federal regulations to hold ontoabout 7,000 cubic feet of water. and so when you throw in the 20,000 galloncistern and factor in the additional reductions in impervious surface, they are holding onto about 7,200 cubic feet of water, so again they are exceeding the federal requirements.a couple other outstanding stormwater-related issues. i'll give you an update on the memorandumof intent which is now being called -- it was an mou at the preliminary stage.the applicant continues to make progress and is very, very close to finalizing this agreementwith the national park service. a final draft was provided by dia to the national park serviceon june 20th and is currently undergoing review by the park service. applicant informed staffyesterday that the affected national park
service units, being the george washingtonmemorial parkway and the clara barton parkway, have reviewed the language of the final draftand are happy with it. it has been forwarded to the solicitor's office and the regionaloffice of the park service and it is being reviewed at that level right now.i mentioned that the applicant did provide staff with a campus-wide stormwater managementplan which addresses state and federal stormwater compliance and that it calculates out howmuch they need to retain at the state and federal level on the entire campus.it identifies sustainable stormwater best management practices not only just for theremainder of the south campus, it does go up to the north campus and identifies someareas along the intended -- the realigned
access road. and that the applicant intendsto further develop this concept. it is right now at about the 15 percent level. it identifiessome opportunities and it looks at what can be -- what is possible.they intend on further developing this concept to about a 35 percent level. the additionaldetails will come at the site-specific level when they get into further design of the landscapeand of the other tasks under this redevelopment scenario.and then finally, between preliminary and final, the applicant did present to the marylandcounty -- montgomery county planning board. the planning board did provide comments whichwere provided to you. and the applicant also provided responses to those comments.in general, the planning board agreed with
the commission's preliminary report and commendedthe applicant on its continued efforts to resolve issues with the community, especiallywith regard to stormwater, it's overall south campus design concept and the preparationof a campus stormwater -- campus-wide stormwater management plan.it did make a few recommendations in regard to the pattern that -- the final patterningof the centrum facade. as you recall, the orange aluminum paneling was initially designedaccording to kind of a pattern of birch trees, which are not native to this area.the planning board and the mncppc staff wanted to see the patterning to more reflect thenative tree pattern and the applicant has indicated in its response that it will dothat in final.
they wanted to make sure to reduce the visibilityof the mechanical penthouses which i have described that they have, begin developingthe overall campus landscape as early as possible, staff, mncppc staff has had some early discussionswith the applicant and we are going to start consulting on the site-wide landscape treatmentsvery, very soon. they wanted to continue engaging with thenational park service, which they are, design the curtain wall to reduce glare and visibility.they will do that. and i won't go through all of them. the green roof and the cisterncapacity, i have already touched upon and the permeable pavements.and finally to add the south campus architectural details in the north campus which the applicanthas indicated to not only this commission,
but the maryland -- montgomery county planningboard that they will. and so with that, it is the executive director'srecommendation that the commission approve the final second building plans for the icc-bphase 2 centrum project, to note that the applicant continues to work with interestedand affected federal and state agencies, interested community stakeholders, to address off-sitestormwater erosion and sedimentation damage caused by the previous occupancy of the siteand to note that the dia and nps are finalizing an moi to address preexisting off-site erosionissues on adjacent park service property. and with that, that concludes my presentation.i'm happy to answer any questions. chairman bryant: thank you, mr. dettman. beforewe go to our two public commenters, are there
any burning questions that you want to getout right now? if not, we can hold them. i don't know if there is anything pressing.let's go to public comment. and we have two speakers who have five minutes each. the firstis dr. zeizel with the community stormwater committee. welcome back. dr. zeizel: thank you for the opportunityto speak before you again. just to refresh some of your memories, i do have a backgroundin 30 years with hud and fema in water resource planning and management. and for the planningcommission, i actually spent five years working with the northeastern illinois metropolitanarea planning commission in floodwater resources planning and management.i and 12 others have been working with the
group through the stormwater management committeeto work with the icc-b staff and your staff. and we have seen quite a bit of beneficialprogress from this cooperation. most of this progress, however, has been planningto repair the damage that has been done to the park service land, the c & o canal andthe potomac watershed. but now we see the planning really moving toward the preventionside of future damages and future losses. and i think here it requires in this approachthat we use more non-structural type of practices to retain, to infiltrate and to use more biotreatmenton site. the use of these stormwater, some people call them new, but they have been aroundfor maybe 20 years, are required by federal, state and local laws. and they are -- andthis, i think, requires more cooperation between
everyone involved, because it is a new andsomewhat complex approach. the water -- the stormwater management group/committeedoes support fully the -- your approval of the centrum site. we think it is a significantstep toward improvement of not only the site itself, but the surrounding community.from a stormwater management perspective, the planned use of the environmental sitedesign techniques in this small area is quite commendable. but the problem that we are beginningto see is that the knowledge and so forth that was demonstrated in this planning andapplication really needs to be better applied, if you will, to the broader site itself.as we move towards prevention, the stormwater management techniques, these are more -- evenmore important. our review of the stormwater
management concept plan, which has been submittedto you, shows that the evaluation of the potential use of the environmental site design methodsare, in general, somewhat inadequate at this point.i think the point that shane made and i think appropriate we just found out is a 15 percentplan. it is a concept plan and will be improved as we move forward.but at this point, there is not really -- we don't really see a serious effort to fullyevaluate the potential for infiltration of water and particularly to do this, you haveto have soil borings. and the first cut of the concept plan does not even address theneed and almost requirement for soil borings to determine the infiltration areas.maryland law and regulations require, and
i'll quote from here, "all reasonable opportunitiesfor using environmental site design planning techniques and treatment practices be exhaustedbefore a structural press management practice is implemented."all -- the emphasis there is not only to quantitatively reduce the outflow, saving money, but alsoto do and retain most of the water on-site and treat it on-site.and our -- so we urge that your ncpc staff review the concept plan very closely to seethat it really fully meets the intent and the -- really the law of the state and localgovernments. again, the emphasis there is on the non-structuralapproach. the core sort of traditionally uses structural approaches. if you use a non-structural,you do reduce cost and are more efficient.
i think we also have to mention somethingtoward this community cooperation aspect of the plan. your commission has noted and itcommended the groups for working with the local communities and to a large extent thisis true. cooperation has resulted in major progress, i think. however, there is someaspects of cooperation always that could be improved.and we find in working with the icc-b staff that we are given reports when they are final.we are not substantially involved with the design of reports. we are not substantiallygiven the opportunity to comment on conduct of the -- of a lot of the work. and we seea fait accompli when we are given the reports with limited time to comment.so basically, our -- also one of the problems
that is -- well, here is an example. for example,in your edr report, the reports tend to say how great this community cooperation is. theycite 16 document availability reports, but all these things are usually just giving usthe opportunity to review a report. it is not giving any opportunity to really havea substantive input with icc-b management. so there -- it is not really true cooperation.in my work over the years with hud and with fema, i have managed many, many multi-milliondollar projects where they substantially involve the stakeholders.i have -- we have -- i can speak professionally that this is absolutely necessary, i think,for better conduct of these kinds of research and this kind of work and that the final productis always improved. there is a substantial
input by the stakeholders.now sometimes as we all know, it is very, very contentious and, in fact, quite betterat times. but, in fact, it is usually to provide a better product.so in this case -- now, we have seen very recently, i would say --chairman bryant: wrap-up, please. dr. zeizel: -- improvement. okay. so basically,our -- we request the commission staff direct their staff -- we have seen this lesseningalmost at a drop the cancellation of talk with your staff on this for some reason, veryrecent. we request that your commission direct your own staff to restore improved communicationwith our stormwater management committee and encourage the icc-b staff to increase andimprove their interaction with the committee
stormwater management committee. thank you.chairman bryant: thank you, dr. zeizel very much. thank you.the second and last is david berg with the brookmont civic league. welcome back. mr. berg: thank you, mr. chairman and membersof the commission. i appreciate the opportunity to testify in favor of the centrum projectand to offer some additional comments. this project will lead the way for the icc-bto become an attractive and functional addition to our corner in the d.c. area. the centrum'splanned stormwater facilities are by far the best to date at the overall icc-b site. andi could elaborate on that, if you would like, but that's very important as it's the firsttime we are seeing esd used on a site.
further, admiral manzelmann repeatedly assuredthe community that no trees will be cut down during this project. however, the edr failedto mention this commitment. i ask that ncpc ascertain whether this is still dia's intention.we are concerned about the conceptual campus-wide stormwater management plan. i want to reiterateart's comments about that and ask that ncpc take a very close look at it.the edr notes on page 3, but without comment, that ncpc received this "plan showing esdopportunities and potential capacities in the north and south campuses and documentationprepared in accordance with epa's guidance addressing compliance with eisa."several members of the committee-- community stormwater committee read this document andwe questioned the characterization in the
edr. the plan is early in its developmentand it is hardly complete. we will provide detailed comments to the team on what we haveseen and engage with the icc-b team as the plan evolves.we encourage ncpc to examine the plan closely before you accept it. i want to note thatinitial discussions with the icc-b staff have been informative and positive. those are veryrecent conversations. so some early concerns. mde and eisa requireproject sponsors to restore predevelopment conditions and/or use esd to the mep, maximumextent practicable. the focus in this plan, however, appears to be compliance with theserequirements at the lowest possible cost regardless of the opportunities for esd, regardless ofpredevelopment conditions and literally without
impacts on communities to the south of thesite. in these times of sequester, cost efficiencyis essential. however, the plan proposes to increase the area of the site dischargingto the county storm sewer by 150 percent from 13 percent to 30 percent reducing stormwaterdischarges to the mid-site stream and saving money by scrimping on esd. all it says withoutincreasing storm flows. while this may be possible, we can't see itsrealization in the conceptual plan, not yet anyway. it is worrisome that the plan failedto describe and discuss the capacity of the county storm sewer system and it does noteven propose a capacity study. we requested a capacity study nearly two yearsago. one should have been done more than a
decade ago when they first started dischargingto the county storm sewer system, but we have not seen one. without such a plan, the overallplan for stormwater on this site has no foundation in reality.importantly, the plan fails to mention where overflows will go when larger storms exceedthe systems on-campus capacity. the answer is overflow -- it appears to be that overflowsleaving the site will go to the nearest inlet of the storm sewer just down the street. whatwill happen to the community then? previous site documents concluded that littleactive erosion exists in the mid-site stream. that makes sense as the core years ago shiftedstormwater from the mid-site stream to the north stream causing damage. the icc-b teamdid decline our suggestion to restore some
of these flows to the mid-site stream to protectthe north stream, but now it proposes to reduce the flows there even further.the plan does not state what is to be gained other than perhaps a lower cost stormwatermanagement plan from more shifts of stormwater, the risks to the community are clear. howeverstrangely, the edr takes an optimistic, if an accurate, view of the plan saying thatthe project team will explore this, that and the other even though the plan itself is clearand stating the opposite. for example, there will be no green roof onerskine hall. this plan says that unfavorable cost benefit. there will be no cistern addedin erskine hall, the reason unfavorable cost benefit. more micro-bioretention areas forthe centrum project area, but they won't fit
and they are not in the centrum stormwaterplan. and contrary to the edr, the plan does notexpress intent to add any esd in the north campus. the edr comments favorably on page19 about the planned use in the centrum project of esd strategies and notes the added benefitsof these strategies. we agree the campus-wide plan, however, failsso far to anticipate using esd strategies to the maximum extent practicable as required.so the centrum project is going to use esd on its three acres, but the entire campusis close to 30. no esd is approved for the 12 plus acre north campus and little esd isproposed outside the centrum project footprint on the south campus.with no intentions in the conceptual plan
to do infiltration studies on most of theicc-b site, the plan simply cannot conclude that the mep requirement is going to be met.these points should adequately illustrate the basis.just to conclude, again, i reiterate our community support for the centrum project. it is really-- it looks good and we are optimistic. we urge ncpc to pay very close attention to thesite-wide stormwater conceptual plan. so three very specific requests:(1) that dia reaffirm that no trees will be lost to the centrum project.(2) encourage the project team to use esd to the mep as required.(3) examine closely the consensual -- conceptual campus-wide plan before you approve it. thankyou very much.
chairman bryant: thank you very much. we willreturn the discussion to the commission. questions or comments from commission members on theedr? mr. hart?commissioner hart: in the past, i have voiced a number of concerns about stormwater management,forest conservation and i think we have moved in the right direction as we move forwardwith this campus plan. i would reiterate my interest in seeing campus-wide addressingboth of those issues. and so as we move forward, i would like tosee in the landscape plan addressing forest conservation as well as the last speaker waspointing out, campus-wide treatment for stormwater management that uses environmental site design.but i think this is moving in the right direction
overall. thank you.chairman bryant: mr. may? commissioner may: thank you. i would agreewith commissioner hart with regard to the future development plan, i mean, and alsowith the progress that has been made on the plan already. i think it has come a long wayand the projects are improved, in the project review stage as a result, but further useof environmental site design is certainly well worth the additional effort in futurestages of the development program. i do want to thank the -- all the neighbors,dr. zeizel and mr. berg, especially, for their diligence in making sure that the projectis executed in the best possible way and that they watch closely what is -- what the applicantis doing with the project.
and i am actually interested in hearing whetherthere is any sort of response that we could get from the corps of engineers to -- fromdia with regard to the points that were made by the speakers.so is there anybody here to speak to those? chairman bryant: do you want to hear fromthe corps? mr. bourgeois: good afternoon, mr. chairman,members of the commission. i'm bobby bourgeois, the on-site dia project manager for the program.i'm mr. manzelmann's on-site representative. what specific comments? i mean, rather thantrying to -- commissioner may: well, just the three atthe very end. so requesting the dia to reaffirm that no trees will be lost in the centrumproject, that's one. two, encourage the project
team to use esd to the mep. and three, examineclosely the conceptual campus-wide stormwater management before you approve it. well, thatis really on us. but if you want to speak to the campus-widestormwater management plan and now strong you think it is, this is your opportunity.mr. bourgeois: the campus stormwater management plan, as mr. dettman alluded, is at a 15 percentdesign level, much of what mr. berg and mr. zeizel mentioned, dr. zeizel mentioned, arevalid points. a lot of those points will be picked up aswe proceed with the design, as we proceed through 35, 65 and 95 percent design. borings,it is our intent understanding the commission, mdes, the communities, interest in providingit, more infiltration on-site. it is our intent
to proceed with borings at the 35 percentdesign. we are currently working with the corps of engineers and urs to contract that35 percent design now, so we can proceed with that over the summer and the fall.so the concerns voiced by mr. berg and dr. zeizel are valid concerns. they will be pickedup, but i think, at this point of the level of design, we don't have answers to thosequestions now, but we will continue to evaluate them.regarding esds on the remainder of campus, that is something else that we will look atas we proceed with this design. the engineers at the time took a look at the existing siteplan, the proposed site plan and tried to quantify it, tried to show that there is sufficientroom and there is sufficient -- that with
the room on campus, with the location of thefacilities, they can provide stormwater management facilities to meet mde and eisa 438 requirements.as opportunities present themselves as we proceed with the design, we will exceed thoserequirements to the extent that we can. commissioner may: the first one was the commitmenton trees. mr. bourgeois: trees. included with the rfpto whiting-turner and their subcontractors, we included mr. manzelmann's commitment lettersto the community dated both january and june of 2012. the january commitment letter indicateshis commitment to the community to not remove any additional forested area on-site.working with the community, some forested area was removed on north campus to accommodatethe parking garage, but whiting-turner understands
mr. manzelmann's commitment. they are boundby contract to honor mr. manzelmann's commitment to the community. so there is no intent. wewill maintain the current curb lines or move them in to the extent possible on south campus.they are ornamental trees. there are large ornamental trees on-campus that we have tolook at. small ornamental trees will be removed. if a large ornamental tree, and there is a32 inch tree to the west of the centrum, if that needs to be removed, we are going towork with the community before doing that. but mr. manzelmann as recently as monday madehis point through myself and mr. ayala to whiting-turner, urs and the corps of engineersthat we are going to do everything possible to protect the larger trees on-site.so the forested area, we are not touching
forested area. ornamental trees, yes, andother ornamental-type trees on-campus we will remove, but i think that is consistent withthe commitment mr. manzelmann made in january of 2012, sir.commissioner may: okay. thank you. chairman bryant: mr. provancha?commissioner provancha: i echo the words of some of the other commissioners about thespectacular progress that has been made in multiple areas. one was the 25 percent -- nearly25 percent reduction in impervious surfaces, i think is commendable. the stormwater managementclearly that effort continues. i think the remediation of adjacent park serviceland outside the boundaries of this site is remarkable and perhaps even unprecedented.the facade pattern accommodations, the shrinking
of the penthouses and the relocation fartherto the west, the submission of the moa with the park service that will guide the futureinteractions, i think, is also commendable. when the corps has said no, i'm sorry, weare unable to do things, they have done the due diligence, the life cycle cost analysis,the cost benefits, examined payback periods and so forth. it's my understanding accordingto the edr what we are approving today is just for the centrum portion of the phase2 on the south campus that we will get a chance to see this project again.the work that is going to be done on roberdeau and erskine facades as well as final landscaping,so we will see at least one or two more presentations. mr. dettman: that's correct.commissioner provancha: okay. all right. so
i think we are headed in the right directionand the communication was a key measure. involvement of stakeholders in the development of plans,i think, is also a good recommendation and i would encourage the corps to follow throughon it and make a commitment in that area. thank you.chairman bryant: thank you very much. anyone else with questions or comments on the edrthat is before you? hearing none, is there a motion on the edr?participant: moved. chairman bryant: it has been moved and?participant: second. chairman bryant: seconded. the edr -- allin favor of the edr as presented say aye. all: aye.chairman bryant: opposed no? thank you very
much. thank you, mr. dettman.we have one more action item before two information items. agenda item no. 5d is the millenniumproject at arlington national cemetery and we have mr. hart.mr. hart: good afternoon, mr. chairman and members of the commission. the departmentof the army has submitted preliminary and final site and building plans for the millenniumproject, which is located in arlington national cemetery in arlington county, virginia.here we have arlington national cemetery and with the surrounding context. as a refresher,i last presented this project in april and at a concept level and at the time, i notedthat congress became concerned a number of years ago that anc were onto national cemeterywould cease being an active cemetery and they
passed laws to extend the life of anc throughexpansion on nearby lands. the millennium property was one of these sitesshown here in the upper left portion of the arlington national cemetery.the other site was the former navy annex site and that is shown in the bottom of the southportion of the slide. and the navy annex will be submitted to ncpc for review in the future.so here is the site which you remember is comprised of land from both joint base myer-hendersonhall, also the national park service as well as an existing maintenance yard at anc. thejoint base myer-henderson hall portion is generally a grassy area with some trees whilethe land from the national park service, which was part of the arlington house property,is generally wooded.
to refresh your memory, there are moderateto severe slopes on either side of the perennial stream. the stream is shown here in blue whichruns through the site. the current condition of the stream bank is poor as previous stormevents have caused moderate to severe erosion over time.a stream restoration project is included in this project as well and this is to bring the stream bed up to the level of theflood plain which i'll note in an upcoming slide.also, again as a refresher, here are a few images of the site. the image on the upperleft is the boundary wall, which is shown here, there. there is a portion of this thatactually has some invasives growing on it. and this boundary wall, the 1,300 foot lengthof this wall will be removed as part of this
project and this is because of grade changesthat are occurring and also the wall is somewhat dilapidated in its current condition.the image on the right shows the steep erosion of the perennial stream that i mentioned earlier.this erosion problem was due to the -- was due to water coming actually down from thejoint base myer-henderson hall site, but that situation has been corrected and that wateris not flowing down any more. and the bottom image is showing the existinganc maintenance area and it is looking toward the south. and this would be-- the generallocation is where the road is going to be located in the project.so back in april, the army submitted this concept design. it included several columbariaareas, also in-ground interment sites, a new
perimeter wall, a loop road as well as streamrestoration. it consisted of 29,922 burial sites for both inurnment and interment burials.and this is what is now being proposed. the main change and i'll flip back to the conceptproposal, the final site. the main change being the removal of one of the columbariadue to budgetary constraints. the anc will replace this columbarium with trees and landscapingto increase the buffer with the national park service property, which is to the east, whichis actually down in this slide. the final plan includes space for 27,242 burial sites.the anc is including over 16,000 niches in their design and i'll go through some of theelements to kind of point them out on the map. the 16,000 niches are -- is a decreaseof 1,500 niches from the previous design due
to the loss of the one columbaria. this columbariahere is shown all in red and then the niche wall is included in that as well.there are also in-ground burial areas and these are shown in the yellow. the in-groundburial areas are for both cremations as well as crypts for coffins.finally, there are other improvements that are being proposed as well. they include theloop road that is shown here in purple, two committal shelters for services and theseare shown in yellow. there are also several bridges that cross over the streams and astream -- the stream restoration project. there are also pathways which will lead fromthe roadway to the columbaria, also to the in-ground burial areas as well as the perimeterwall. these pathways will be made of a porous
pavement material.the image on the upper left is showing a section of the loop road. cfa approved the final -- thisfinal design for the entire project in april and delegated the final roadway design tocfa staff. cfa -- at the time, cfa requested that anc explore ways to reduce the widthof the roadway or to use porous pavement. after some research, anc determined that itwasn't able to reduce the width of the roadway due to operational concerns and that the porouspavement would not work due to some maintenance concerns. anc then decided to designate aparking area in the proposed roadway. so in the same roadway width, which wouldbe visually separated from the proposed travel lanes, but would not involve the actual wideningof the road. what is shown here in the upper
left is a 6 foot concrete strip which is nextto the existing asphalt travel lanes. cfa has approved this, staff has approvedthis change and ncpc staff supported it as well.okay. as i showed back in april, in my april presentation, this is a section of the -- ofwhat is being proposed. this section has not changed. there is a 60 foot grade change,as you will note, from the joint base myer-henderson hall side of the property, which is just overhere to the left down to the stream bed. and as i noted before, the stream has -- wasvery eroded previously. and so what they are trying to do is to maintain the riparian bufferor bring the stream up to where the riparian buffer is to allow the flood plain to actuallydo what it is supposed to do, which is help
to deal with and spread out the water duringflooding events. also, i'll note that the perimeter wall thatis shown here will have niches on the arlington national cemetery side and on the joint basemyer-henderson hall side. it will be clad in seneca sandstone. and this seneca sandstoneis a reused material from the wall, the historic boundary wall that is being removed. so theyare doing that. that is actually part of the mitigation which i'll talk about in an upcomingslide. the national park service requested that theanc provide stormwater management for an anc parking lot. this parking area is near themillennium site and you can see in this image here, this is the millennium site outlinedin red. and the parking area is here. and
what it does is actually drain down into theperennial stream. and where it is draining, it is actually eroding or has eroded out theoutfall area. and so what they are doing is they are doingsome work to detain some of the water up -- i'm sorry, i shouldn't say that. this is a changeto the elevation. this is a higher level than it is down here. so they are detaining someof the water up here before it continues down the slope.so what is included here is 19,000 cubic feet of water or detention or storage. they arealso looking at removing pavement around some of the existing trees and this area here,these areas here are the areas that they are going to be removing over the pavement thatthey will be removing around the trees.
and as well as restoring an outfill area,this area down here, and the drainage area that continues down to the stream as well.and they are doing this by treating the water at this location up here and they are doingthat through a hydrodynamic separator, which basically allows the solids to drop down intoan area in the water to continue moving on. and this helps to clean the water as it isgoing from the paved area into the basin, into the storage and then down into the outfalland down into the perennial stream. so what did staff look at with regard to thisproject? the commission comments are shown here. they are to continue to refine the designto minimize harm and provide appropriate mitigation through consultation, as required by the -- bysection 106 of the national historic preservation
act to refine the visual impact survey inways that are responsive to consulting parties, to do a thorough exploration of decreasingthe width of the road bed in the areas at arlington house woods and finally, to preventa net tree loss and i'll talk about all of these in a minute.anc has continued to refine the design and minimize harm and provide actually appropriatemitigation through consultation. and i'll talk about the mitigation in an upcoming slide.anc has also refined and included additional analysis in the visual impact survey, thathas been responsive to consulting parties. they note that the width of the road at thearlington house woods is needed for operational reasons and really this is about their -- theneed for families that are coming for the
services to be able to park.they don't really have parking areas here and the roadways are used for that need. andthey need the area for the roadway to be able to do that. and anc has also increased thetree replacement and now meets the ncpc comp plan policy of no net tree loss.so they conducted a visual impact study looking at the site from a variety of advantage points.the image over on the left here of the map shows these points that they were kind oflooking at the millennium site which is here in kind of the middle of the slide.and in april this study had not been completed and the consulting parties requested a fewadditional sites in these areas that are highlighted in yellow are the areas that were really included.and these were really looking from the arlington
house woods towards the site.the images on the -- the photographs on the left or excuse me, on the right are showingviews from arlington house itself. so views from here looking down towards the site. andbecause of topography as well as just vegetation, there are a number of trees that are betweenthis site and the millennium project. it really isn't visible from the arlington house itself.now, with regard to the views from arlington house woods, anc has included some views.this is one of the views. i would like to note that the arlington house woods area doesnot contain any trails and doesn't have plans to do so, so this view from -- at the bottomhere would not be really seen by the general public, but it is something that you needto understand what the views are, what they
would look like.and while the project is visible, as you can tell in this image on the bottom, during thewinter months, anc notes these views would be consistent with and complimentary to theoverall image of arlington national cemetery. it is a -- during the section 106 process,they did have a determination of adverse effect on historic properties and they have donesome mitigation for dealing with that. this table does show the change from the conceptstage to the final stage. the number of trees to be removed has increased by 23 trees, butthey also did increase the number of trees to be planted from 600 trees to 800 treesand in addition to the 800 trees, 1,600 seedlings. anc estimates that approximately 65 percentof these seedlings would survive in the first
five years.staff feels that this exceeds the no net tree policy -- no net loss tree policy in the compplan. anc developed mitigations as part of the nepain section 106 processes in conjunction with consulting parties, which included ncpc staff.the section 106 process was completed on june 3rd of this year and the nepa process wascompleted with a signed fonsi on june 5th of this year.the mitigation here is shown -- includes the documentation and reuse of the historic wallas well as that landscape in the area, the reuse of the wall material. the mitigationalso includes planting of 800 trees and the 1,600 seedlings, which as i noted earlier,as well as 12,000 shrubs.
they are looking at restoration of the deeplyincised perennial stream area and the removal of invasives on anc property for three years.anc has also agreed to let local groups come on-site and remove vegetation, so if thereare older trees that they like to preserve, they could take acorns or take the tree specimensthemselves as well as providing for tree cross-sections from several larger trees on the site to arlingtoncounty government and this is for just kind of understanding what the age of the treesare. and with that, the executive director recommendsthat the commission approve the preliminary and final site and building plans for the27 acre millennium project at the arlington national cemetery which includes 27,242 inurnmentand interment types to committal structures
perimeter wall, niche spaces, loop road, stormwatermanagement system and 1,700 linear feet of stream restoration.and the commission also notes that the current proposal includes a refining visual impactsurvey that is responsive to consulting parties as well as reflects the result of ongoingefforts to reduce adverse effects at the arlington house woods and mitigation through consultationas required by the national historic preservation act.i'm not going to read the written mitigation, because i just spoke of that. it also preventsthe net tree loss by increasing the number of replacement trees to 800 and adding 1,600seedlings to the reforested area. and then finally, the commission notes theapplicant is not reducing the width of the
road bed at the 145 year-old arlington housewoods because of operational concerns. and with that, i conclude my presentation.and we have some members of arlington national cemetery here to answer chairman bryant: surething. thank you. mr. hart?commissioner hart: was there a sediment control plan included in this submission?mr. hart: yes, they worked with the department of environmental -- the virginia departmentof environmental quality as well as the virginia department of conservation and recreationfor stormwater as well as the sediment control plan. and they can speak to that a littlebit more. commissioner hart: my concern is that notonly are we taking out a whole lot of mature
trees, planting very small trees as replacements,but we are going to be regrading an enormous area. that disturbance is going to cause,you know, the potential for a lot of sedimentation into this perennial stream on out into thepotomac and then the chesapeake bay. it's, you know, one of those things that weneed to be cognizant of and avoid any adverse impacts. so i was curious to know, you know,what kind of stormwater protection we're going to have after it is built, but also that duringconstruction there be adequate sedimentation control built in to this sequence.lt. col. fedroff: sir, i'm lieutenant colonel dave fedroff from arlington national cemetery.that is certainly a very detailed question for me to kind of answer, but i do have someof our consultants here, i would ask if maybe
they could. tom, are you probably the besthere? mr. massey: i'm sure scott could probablyjoin me and talk a little bit about it. lt. col. fedroff: i'll sort of leave thatto those who have a little more expertise in the specifics to answer that. thank you,sir. mr. massey: good afternoon. my name is tommassey. i'm with jacobs. we are the architect of record for the project. scott petrey, ifi said that correctly is with wssi, as well-respected consultant in the virginia area in chargeof our stream restoration and i think you can report today that we have received finalapproval for our sediment control and other storm water facilities from the state. isthat true?
mr. petrey: yes, we have received approvalfrom the virginia department of environmental quality for the cemetery expansion. we receivedthe spgp permit for that as well as the nationwide permit from the army corps of engineers forthe stream restoration project. mr. massey: so it has been a big concern ofa lot of parties here because of just the points you have made earlier. and we thinkwe have made a good move in moving that sediment control plan into reality.commissioner hart: and will the-- there is an exhibit in the edr that shows two bioretentionareas and one sheet flow area. are those the only stormwater management elements for thismillennial park area? mr. massey: dan might be able to answer thatquestion for me as well, if i can bring one
more of my associates to the stand. dan deibleis our landscape architect also with me from jacobs.mr. deible: yes, actually, i wanted just to go back. we have the permit for the sedimenterosion control, but it sounded like you wanted just a little bit of detail and i would justsay that sediment erosion control consists of two phases.during all points of the construction project, the stream restoration is actually the firstitem that happens. and then as we start to expand out into the project, we use a varietyof pretty much everything in the arsenal of the sediment erosion control to prevent anyof that sediment to reach the stream because, you know, it has just been restored.stormwater management does consist of those
items that you mentioned. but probably thelargest aspect of the stormwater management is the entire burial areas are all coveredwith approximately 2 feet of a very -- it's called compost amended soil. it does two things.it creates a great growing medium for the lawn that is, you know, a large maintenancesite ongoing for the cemetery, but it also is very absorbent and it's actually a stormwatermanagement measure now, newly adopted stormwater management measure in the state of virginia.it infiltrates very effectively. in fact the entire burial area, you have the 2 feet ofthat soil further than in the crypt area, it's a very permeable gravel that surroundsthe concrete crypt, so the water actually has to -- gets to infiltrate through approximately8 feet of the material before it gets to a
subsurface drainage system.so it slows the water down. it lets the water infiltrate into the ground. and so we feelthat we have a very effective system to deal with the stormwater and mitigate any of its-- you know any extra runoff or the quality as well.commissioner hart: and that subsurface drainage system goes where?mr. deible: it eventually ties into several points where there is existing channels thatgo into the stream and it discharges into that channel at the bottom, you know, intothe ultimate discharge from the site, which is the stream through the center.commissioner hart: okay. advantagement to the road areas because the roads have shrunk?mr. deible: well, that -- the roads did shrink
a little. we took as much of the road as wecould and reduced the width from 30 feet to 22 feet, so there is a section of road.commissioner hart: yes. mr. deible: and i wanted to mention that,too, because that did reduce our impervious area. but the roads are being treated by thosebioswales that you see on the plan. those are specifically to treat the impervious areaon the roads. commissioner hart: okay. thank you.chairman bryant: okay. thank you. commissioner white: could i ask?chairman bryant: yes. tom? commissioner white: i would like to ask anotherquestion about the idea of having people come in and take the trees that were fallen andacorns. how did that idea come about and how
is that going to be managed? i imagine thereis enormous symbolic value in that to folks who have family members --mr. massey: can i ask the colonel to respond? commissioner white: -- there. i'm just curious.it's a really interesting idea. lt. col. fedroff: part of the mitigation thatwas brought to us by arlington county primarily their forestry group with the county and theyhave actually already come to the site and done some collection. really, they have beenthe only organization who has really pursued that.commissioner white: um-hum. lt. col. fedroff: and it is -- and we arekind of giving them the opportunity because due to seasonal changes, there are some differentitems to collect, different times of the year.
so they have already come to do some duringthe spring and with construction probably not starting until later this year, they -- isuspect they will want to come and do it again. and actually that is something the cemeteryhas done sort of on a recurring basis as has allowed that to happen. so it really wasn'tthat bit of a change for us. one of the other mitigations that carltonhad mentioned was they had requested for, they are calling them, cookies, but slicesof the trees and i think they are going to use them, as you said, probably for some agethings, but also i think they want to sort of preserve them and put them in librarieswithin the county as well. so it was really a very easy to agree to mitigationand just simple coordination between a few
of their staff and a few of our staff to sortof work out access, but nothing out of the ordinary for what we do there.commissioner white: yes it just seems like a very interesting potential, too, in termsof education and, you know, people feeling a part of a very important place. thank you.lt. col. fedroff: yes, ma'am. chairman bryant: mr. provancha?commissioner provancha: i wanted to compliment the team on the multiple mitigations thatwas covered in the presentation, reduction in the number of columbariums, the use ofmaterials including reuse of the deteriorating portions of the wall working hard.again, while we have not yet implemented the caliper standard, the replacement in-kindin the numbers of trees is commendable. many
of us are sensitive to that.the stormwater management including the stream restoration, those of us that are neighborsof the cemetery, including those of us at the pentagon that are downhill, we appreciatecommissioner hart's questions about management and runoff.the viewsheds, the analysis of the viewsheds, absolutely, i think it was highlighted. thoseare absolutely consistent with the use of the site, so it's not inappropriate for theuse of the -- from their elected house to see those grave sites.we want to report also that the demolition of the navy annex to the south, the 42 or43 acres that will be turned over, that is proceeding well. it is on schedule. some ofthe aspects are head of schedule. that land
straddles columbia pike and is adjacent tojoyce street in collaboration with not only the cemetery, but arlington county on thefuture planning and use of that site. so i think the project continues to make goodprogress and we are pleased to see hat. commissioner provancha: thank you.chairman bryant: anything? well, thank you very much. it's a very historic project.sensing no further comments or questions, there is a motion and a second on the edr.all in favor of the edr as presented say aye. all: aye.chairman bryant: opposed no? thank you. mr. hart, thank you very much.mr. hart: thank you. chairman bryant: the last two items on theagenda are information items. agenda item
no. 6a is an update on the congressionally-requestedheight master plan study. and making his final appearance before us is mr. zaidain.mr. zaidain: okay. thank you, mr. chairman and members of the commission. as the chairmansaid, this presentation is an information presentation just to update the group on wherewe are in the study of the height act as requested by congress.essentially, we are wrapping up the first phase of the study and what we have accomplishedto this point and then also to talk about what is coming to the commission and the publicin the next month or so. so just some background on where we are orhow we got to this point. last summer on july 19th there was a hearing before the housecommittee on oversight of government reform.
to discuss the height act, there were a panelof experts to testify, which included marcel acosta, our executive director, and harriettregoning of the district. a follow-up to that hearing was a letter fromthe house committee requesting a joint study of the height act and that came in octoberand that request was for the district of columbia and the national capital planning commissionto jointly study the height act and essentially see if it is still working for the city andto analyze strategic changes to the act, if appropriate.in november there are responses from the chairman bryant, ncpc chairman bryant and mayor gray,accepting that task and laying out some general parameters for how the study will be conducted.in this communication, there were three general
principles that were established that kindof represent the foundation of the study. the first principle is to ensure the prominenceof federal landmarks and monuments by preserving their views and settings.the second principle is to maintain the horizontality of the monumental city skyline.and the third principle is to minimize negative impacts to nationally significant historicresources, including the l'enfant plan. so we still time in this first phase discussingthese principles and trying to flesh them out not only with federal and district stakeholders,but also with the public. it was a central part of our public outreach, which i'll discussa little bit of. in terms of how the study is proceeding, thefirst phase, which as i said we are wrapping
up, included some discussion of the studyprinciples really trying to understand what those principles mean, really trying to understandfederal and local interests. we have also done some case studies to understandhow this issue of building height has been managed in other cities around the world thathave similar characteristics as washington and have faced similar development patterns.we have also concluded our first set of public meetings, which occurred at the end of mayand in june and i'll talk a little bit about how that outreach has gone.the second phase which is what we are moving into consists of more of the analytical piece.there are two studies which have been underway. one is a modeling study, which is lookingat the visual and physical effects of varying
heights in certain areas of the city and alsoan economic study that has been underway. both of these studies have been contractedby the district of columbia and these will be presented to the commission at its specialwork session on july 24th. so they are -- will be coming out. and they also will be the subjectof the public meetings in august, so that we can thoroughly vet them with the public.and then the final phase, we will be developing draft recommendations which will then cometo the commission for its deliberation and then there will be a set of public hearingsto gather public input on those recommendations. and then the recommendations will be votedon and transmitted to congress in the fall. so to talk a little bit about the case studiesand then the full document is on the web to
be downloaded, but we looked at several cities,paris, france, vancouver, barcelona, london was kind of the first batch that we lookedat and really the lessons here generally looked at how these cities managed building heightand the context of really important assets that establish the quality of the city.so in paris, building heights were pretty much focused -- additional building heights,i should say, were pretty much focused away from the historic core of the city and focusedon the periphery of the central historic part of paris.vancouver took advantage of views and experiences to its natural features in molding buildingheight. the kind of urban design framework in that example focused on preserving andenhancing views to the mountains and to the
waterfront areas.barcelona which is very similar to paris focused it's additional building height in higherdevelopment in areas outside of its historic core, which is essentially the gothic area.london is a very interesting example, because it focused its building height, frameworkon preserving and enhancing views to a specific building, which is st. paul's cathedral. soif you look at that case, you will see the -- the one in example provides examples wherethere is specific view corridors that are preserved to that civic building to preserveits prominence in the setting. and then the second batch of case studies we looked atlooked at how building heights are focused on specific historic features.in philadelphia, this is the case study of
how additional building heights have changedaround the historic city all and downtown philadelphia.madison, wisconsin, it's framework has been focused on preserving views to the state capitaland establishing what is called a zone of respect around that state capital to preserveits views. hamburg, germany and dublin, ireland are reallygood examples, because their frameworks focus on the skylines and really enhancing and establishingthe prominence of certain characteristics on the skyline and hamburg it's the churchsteeples. in dublin, it is certain different features that vary around the city and theimage i showed here is one of the historic churches.in st. louis, the example there, of course,
is focused no the arch and preserving buildingheights so that the arch remains prominent in the landscape there.so this is just a good way to get the study kicked off, so we look at best practices fromother areas. we are certainly not trying to turn washington into one of these cities specifically,it was meant to start generating ideas and discussion which it has with our stakeholdersand the pub. so i'm going to kind of pitch it for officeof public engagement here and talk about the public outreach. again, we have done a hostof public events to really get the dialogue started about the public outreach. and i thinkmany of the commissioners have attended these events.on march 5th, we hosted an event at the national
archives that was attended by over 200 people.they had a panel of speakers from several international cities to talk about how buildingheights have been managed in their respective cities.we have established an on-line presence that is rolling and is ongoing. there is a portalwhere anybody can provide comments. we have received over 100 comments so far with peopleproviding their opinions about this issue and those comments are then posted on thewebsite, so you can get on there and read what other people have said.we also have the twitter campaign going where people can tweet about these issues and keepa dialogue going. we have held four public meetings to vet theinitial ideas and principles that have been
established in phase 1. i think the intenthere is to have a public meeting in each ward. and so in this first chunk, we had meetingsin three wards and then the next chunk, which is phase 2, we will hit the remaining wards.but these were held towards the end of may and in early june. and again, these talkedabout the principles that were established for the study, some of the federal and localinterests. we presented the information of the case studies and we also wanted to educatethe public on exactly what the study is, why we are doing it and how it is being conducted.part of those meetings as we had some comment cards, which people are allowed to jot downtheir thoughts. we also had an opportunity to provide -- to have a participant providepost cards from the future of what washington
skyline may look like as it evolves, giventhe outcome of the height study and these are an example of some of the drawings thatwe have got. actually some pretty good drawings from the public.and then we actually got a couple of messages as well through that process. there is a documenton-line through our website that has all of the raw comments from these public meetingscompiled, so you are more than welcome to get on that -- and download that documentand see all of the specific comments. in general, there has been a range of opinions.there certainly is no one prevailing opinion that is really the wringing out. we have heardeverything from maintaining the status quo and don't change the height act to exploreradical changes to the height act. so it really
is a wide range of opinions that we have receivedto this point and i do encourage you to look at the document.in terms of themes that really kind of make the dialogue complex, we have heard themesabout affordability, density, neighborhood protection, the issue of home rule is an importantone about why there should even be a federal height act. and then also, there has beena lot of dialogue about the federal height act versus local zoning.what issues should be properly addressed in the federal height act? what issues shouldbe properly addressed in local zoning? there is a lot of concern which relates to the themeof density about things like infrastructure, capacity and transportation.so there is really a lot of really complex
issues that almost go beyond just buildingheight that have been brought up in these discussions. and we are certainly lookingforward to keeping those discussions going in our continued public outreach.an additional aspect beyond just public meetings, we have been convening federal stakeholderconversations. this is really pulling together a wide range of federal representatives, facilitymanagers, security professionals, representatives from the historic community to coming in andhep facilitate discussions on this issue. we have had two, to this point, in additionto individual meetings with federal agencies. and some of the agency themes that we havebeen collecting there is obviously issues related to security and communications infrastructure,just trying to understand how this al relates.
the facility operations, mission implicationsand then also historic, cultural and symbolic resource impacts. so just trying to get thedialogue going with the federal agencies understanding what other federal interests may be out there.and we will continue those stakeholder conversations into the next phase.so in the next phase, which is phase 2, which will be -- the focus of these will be theeconomic and height studies that are becoming available towards the end of the month.there will be a special commission meeting again on july 24th where this be presentedand discussed with the commission. and then there will be series of public meetings throughthe beginning of august, the dates up here, and there will be in the area of tenleytownarranging around the city including catholic
university and then we will have one of theoffice of planning as well. so we are looking forward to getting additionalpublic outreach and really getting into some specific discussions related to live study.and so just to kind of prep the commission on what you are going to see on july 24th,the height modeling study is structured in kind of two basic ways. the study is lookingat skyline and aerial views and how various levels of building height can impact certainareas. the study is looking at three different geographiclevels. one is the law l'enfant city, which is the historic core of the city that wasplanned by pierre l'enfant. the topographic bowl, which is sort of that ridge escarpmentarea around the l'enfant city and then illustrative
areas, which are areas that have been identifiedin the district comprehensive plan as high- or medium-density areas and for future landuse, which could be potential reasons that might be appropriate for additional growth.and then beyond that, there are street level corridor views which looks at the impactsof additional height we have on the pedestrian experience and on public space. so there areselected views from certain streets both within the l'enfant city and out that looks at theimpacts of these varying eights. so it's a good way to get the dialogue startedabout how change to building heights may affect important areas of the city.and then secondly is the economic feasibility study which is a technical study that looksat the costs, construction cost implications
of additional height. and then the economicimpact of any change in height. so these two will be on the agenda for the 24th and therewill be the district and its consultants here to present and discuss that with you.okay. so beyond july 24th, we are having additional public meetings. again, draft recommendationsto the commission in september, which will also be followed up by public hearings. andthen there are, as i said, ongoing opportunities for public input.the website is up and running and is getting a lot of hits at ncpc.gov\heightstudy. wehave a direct email setup at info@ncpc.gov and then the twitter campaign is set by thehandle at #heightdc. so that's where we are now at the conclusion of phase 1 and we aremoving into phase 2. and again, that will
be the subject of the july 24th special commissionwork session. chairman bryant: ms. tregoning? commissioner tregoning: just a comment. i'llsay something about what a pleasure it has been to work with the ncpc commissioners,my fellow commissioner and staff. i'm really gratified that so many people have been atpublic meetings and i want to call out commission dixon, who literally hosted us for the meetingin ward 8 and got a great turnout for that meeting.so that was particularly good. chairman bryant: and cooked for you.commissioner wright: and cooked great food i hear.commissioner tregoning: great food, great food. and also just to recognize david zaidainand the work that he has done on this effort.
not surprisingly, this is both a very highprofile and contentious topic. contentious in public meetings, a little bit testy sometimesamong our federal partners. and he has been a constant professional and very much a pleasureto work with. so we are going to miss him in this process.i can't believe he would bail before the report to congress.mr. zaidain: it wasn't intentional, i promise. commissioner tregoning: but in any event,i just wanted to acknowledge this great effort and also just to wish him well on behalf ofthe d.c. office of planning. thank you. commissioner arrington: mr. chairman, i have-- first of all thank you. it is wonderful to be a part of the anacostia, all over thecity with this effort.
the one thing i have noticed about ncpc duringmy experiences here is that we have demonstrated the ability to do outreach to make the communityfeel -- be a part, not feel, be a part of our planning.i really think it is one thing that we have carried out to the other capitals around theworld how we do that. and many don't do it well as we do it here. and i think this isa great opportunity to do it and it is going very well now. and i'm going to do more ofattending, because i think it's fascinating. we have been dealing with this height issuefor years in d.c. and now all of a sudden we're going to open it up for a real discussion.so we will see what happens. i also was hoping that even though it's summertime, i wouldreally like to get some young kids' visions
of this as a way we can reach focus groupsor touch the school system or summer programs, because i'm -- because they are the ones thatare going to live with this future plan or this future concept and it would be cleverto see what they think of it. the other point i want to make is i believethe letter we got which started this whole thing in the presentation that was made atthe archives building, indicated some concern for the appearance of the rooftops when youcome into the cit flying in. and not everybody flies in, but there are some who do.and i thought there was some indication that some buildings could maybe be given some heightadjustments to accommodate making those rooftops more functional and less air conditioning,heating and i think that as said repeatedly
that when you fly in, you see these tops thatlook so bad. and maybe it would be one way to look at buildingswhere we could do something and maybe height would be appropriate, acceptable and stillmake the rooftops more functional and look better.i think that's it. commissioner tregoning: i will just say thatis something that we are looking at among the alternatives.chairman bryant: mr. miller? commissioner miller: yes. i just wanted toecho our thanks to david zaidain for all your excellent professional work on this plan andall the other plans and projects throughout the years. it has been a pleasure to workwith you and i commend the staff on the public
outreach.i would say that if meetings aren't well-attended in the month of august that maybe we shouldhave another one for phase 2 some time after, maybe the second week in september or something,but maybe your outreach is so good that you will keep people from taking vacation.chairman bryant: mr. may? commissioner may: yeah, i would like to underscoreboth points, thanks to mr. zaidain. it has been a pleasure over the many, many yearsworking with you going all the way back to, i think, when you were on the bza and i wasin a different job. anyway, the -- but i am concerned. i mean,that was the one problem that i saw in the presentation is public meetings in august.and it's just such a taboo thing for us. we
don't even go near that in the park service.it just doesn't -- it is a bad thing to have to do. and i understand why we have to doit in this circumstance. i was at another meeting on this topic thatwas not one that you sponsored, but it was sponsored by another organization and thecries of conspiracy started going up about this. and i tried to defend ncpc because atthat time, i didn't know that you were planning meetings in august. oh, no, they wouldn'tdo that, they are very sensitive about this. so anyway, if there is anything that can bedone to repeat the information or do something in september to make sure that you touch thefolks who would otherwise not be able to make one of the other ones. i assume the four thatare happening in august are essentially the
same content, right?mr. zaidain: yes. commissioner may: right.mr. zaidain: yes. commissioner may: so if there could be a repeatin early september, i think that you would be able to quell any of that criticism. buti also think that it is -- if you do go ahead and set that out, that you make it very clearto everybody that the content will be the same in all of these things. so it's not -- youknow, because some people want to go to every meeting and it may not -- it's not reallynecessary. okay. thanks. chairman bryant: thank you very much.mr. zaidain: thank you. chairman bryant: the last information itemon our agenda is agenda item no. 6b and it's
the washington metropolitan area transit authorityand its momentum plan. mr. acosta: before we begin, i have to recusemyself from this matter. i am a member of the board of directors of wmata and this maybe coming up. chairman bryant: yes, sir. mr. staudigl, welcome.mr. staudigl: thank you. good afternoon, mr. chairman and members ofthe commission. today you are going to hear an information presentation from mr. mortdowney, one of the federal government's representatives to the wmata board.mr. downey is going to update you on momentum, the metro strategic plan. you previously hearda presentation on the plan last winter while it was in development. the board has sinceadopted momentum and you each have a copy
of it in front of you.in addition to working to bring the system to a high level of service, metro has begunplanning for the system's future. it developed a public outreach process to understand theregion's priorities in which provided the themes for momentum.the plan has safety as its highest priority and emphasizes the importance of optimizingthe current transit network and maximizing capacity.momentum is built around four goals and they are accomplished on the plan and proposesseveral initiatives be implemented by 2025. and mr. downey is going to provide you withthese details and he is going to be available for questions following his presentation.while today's presentation is just for informational
purposes, wmata does request that ncpc reviewthe plan and consider endorsing it. as described in the wmata compact, ncpc reviews changesto wmata's mass transit plan. and we anticipate coming before you for potentialendorsement of momentum at the september meeting. and prior to that, the staff will review momentumfor consistency with ncpc plans and policies and will make a recommendation regarding endorsement.an important point to note is that endorsement of momentum does not imply the commission'sfuture approval of the plan's individual projects as they are going to come before you for review.mr. downey brings more than 50 years of experience in operations and management of major publictransportation authorities. he has been involved with the metro system for more than 40 yearshelping accrue a complete fundamental system
of both government officials and industryexperts. having previously served as the deputy secretaryof the u.s. department of transportation and as the executive director of the new yorkcity metropolitan transportation authority, mr. downey has run and overseen efficientand accountable transit programs across the nation.mr. downey? chairman bryant: mr. downey, welcome.mr. downey: thank you. chairman bryant: i'm glad you are here.mr. downey: good to be here. chairman bryant: yes, sir.mr. downey: as you have heard, i'm one of the two federal appointees to the washingtonmetro board. this is actually a new configuration
for the board to have federal appointees andwe particularly appreciate you lending marcel to us for probably more time than either youor he expected it would be, but he is an important contributor to the board.i'm going to move quickly through the slideshow, which we -- which describes our strategicplan and, as noted, it was issued in draft earlier this year and more recently our boardhas adopted it. we are adopting it has a basis to direct our future activities, both in termsof managing the system and in guiding its future growth.we put it forward to better explain what we are doing now, but also to encourage a dialogueabout what we should be doing and what the region should be doing in the future to supportgrowth, economic viability and sustainability.
we want to convert this from our plan to theregion's plan. there is still a lot that will have to bedone to execute it over probably many decades of these specific project decisions, environmentalreviews. certainly we have to develop a funding proposal that makes it work. we will haveto adopt formal amendments to the regional transit plan which is our charter responsibility.we will have to conform to federal funding requirements and the like. but most importantly,what we will have to do is continue to improve and rebuild the system we have. we will nothave credibility to talk about what we should do over the next 50 years if within the nexttwo or three years we don't finish the job of fixing the system that we have.but even though there is much to be done,
i am excited about the prospects. i am confidentthat we are making progress day-by-day. i have been on the board now a little over threeyears joining somewhat after the tragic fort totten crash in the summer of 2009. and ibelieve with an almost entirely new board and with a new ceo, we are making progress.so let me talk about where we are with the plan. today we are heavily into the rebuildingof the foundation of the system, a $5 billion six-year federal local partnership for rebuilding.if you are moving around the system on weekdays or particularly on weekends, you see how muchwork is going on. we are literally rebuilding the system.21 miles of new running rail, improved escalators. you may not believe it, but we are actuallyup to more than 90 percent availability on
our escalators on each day. a lot of safetyimprovements, many of which were suggested by the national transportation safety boardand we have coming an entire replacement fleet of subway cars to replace the oldest carson the fleet, the first ones are about to roll up the production line in lincoln, nebraska.why are we doing all of this? because metro is what keeps the region working. over 50years now, it has become the backbone of the region. more than half of the jobs in thisregion are within a half mile of metro stations or bus stops and critically for the federalgovernment, it is the means of getting federal employees to and from work every day. that'sone of the reasons that the federal government in 2008 passed a special unique metro appropriation-- metro appreciation of $150 million a year
to assure that the system is rebuilt.when we look to the future, there are a couple of kind of frames we like to put it in. oneis to ask the question what if we didn't have the metro? not something we would like tothink about. i came to this down first in 1975 when there was no metro, but there wasa lot of holes in the ground, but it has changed so much since then.if we didn't have it, there would be a million more cars on the road every day. there wouldhave to be 1,000 new lane miles of highway. it would not be the kind of reason that weall enjoy today. there is a wonderful pid chart or picture on page 16 of the reportshowing that if all these cars came in and had to park in midtown of d.c., there wouldno longer be a midtown of d.c.
essentially five levels of parking throughoutthe entire downtown area would have to be there. so that's not what we want. we knowwhat the consequences of that would be. we have to look forward just as this region didalmost 50 years ago under president johnson's leadership, they asked the question of whatdo we want to be as a region and what kind of transportation system do we need to putin place to get there? we think it is time to ask those questionsagain and hopefully come up with another good set of answers.another thought is what if we did nothing? what if we just continue to run the systemas it is? we are already the most congested region in the country. it would just get worse.metro would degrade quickly in terms of safety.
the progress that we have begun to make inthe last three years would be lost pretty quickly.the quality of life in the region would be seriously degraded and our competitive advantageto get people to move here, take jobs create businesses and the like would no longer exist.so we believe we have to look ahead. and our goal initially is to maximize the effectivenessof the system we have with some improvement the system could accomplish a lot more andthen be the framework for going further. but we need to plan. we really need to be lookingat it now. things that need to be in place by 2025 should have started already. but ifwe make decisions now, we can get them in place.the system is truly bursting at the seams
right now. i can tell you from the orangeline this morning, we had a number of my close personal friends who if they work out, theycertainly became that as we are riding in here. buses are standing room only and theyhave to operate in the same traffic as the auto fleets, so it's just a very inefficientoperation. but you stop and think, there are more peoplecoming. the population projection for this region say 30 percent more people, 39 percentmore jobs. we have to figure out how to handle that. and the infrastructure is not just goingto build itself. right now, there is no funding in place for any substantial improvement otherthan the silver line, which, you know, is well-under construction now. by the end ofthis year, it will be turned over to us to
begin operations.and the airport authority awarded the contract just a few days ago to finish the system outto dulles and beyond, but nothing is in place beyond that. so the goals of our strategicplan really represent what we believe needs to be done to get to where we need to go.first and foremost, we have to have the best safety culture and the safest system in thecountry. i chair the board's safety committee. we meet every month to say what are we doingto get to that place? it's what our customers expect. it is what they deserve. the systemneeds to be physically safe. we need to deal with any issues of crime in the stations andon the buses and our police force is doing that.we need to expect the unexpected. we need
to know how we can respond quickly to thingsthat happen on the system. i don't know if any of you were caught up in last night'skind of meltdown on the orange line, but we got a report this morning that was solvedin about an hour and a half, but it was a pain for everybody.and then lastly, we are beginning to understanding we have to make some serious looks at extremeweather conditions and what we have to do to mitigate those. we were fortunately notin the path of sandy last summer. my good friends in new york were. they were inundated.i think it is very likely that if it had come in our direction, we would have been inundated.the smithsonian station would have looked like niagara falls and the water would haveflowed throughout the system. so we need to
think about that, safety first. we also haveto think about customer service. if we cannot serve our customers well, we are not goingto get the support we need to expand the system. we have heard what they would like. they wanta system that works well. certainly they want the basics, safety, predictability, reliability,but they also recognized that it needs to be a 21st century system. it needs to be intuitive,that you can walk in and use it and know how to get around.it needs to have better signage, better customer information. we need to get all of the transitand transportation operators in the region on the same wavelength of providing information,providing a unified trip planning capability, providing a unified fare system. we need toget real-time information in front of the
customers when and where they need it. thatwill be a key commitment. with that, we think we can be a significantforce in bringing the system and the region to the next level. a lot of thinking is goingon now within the region, the metro forward work that cog is doing. obviously the workthat you do with your vision of this capital region.how does transportation fit into that? when metro was developed and thought through 50years ago, it was to bring suburban commuters to downtown jobs. that was essentially whatit was about. now, we have multiple employment centers.we have proliferation of transit agencies. we need a transit leader and metro is volunteeringto take that role. not to do it all, not to
be the monopoly provider, but to offer leadershipon how our transportation system can serve our regional goals.to do that, we have to squeeze every possible drop of capacity out of the existing system.eight car trains, what we call a priority corridor network for the buses, core capacityimprovements to get people in and out of the center or the region.we need to create empty seats and then fill them with new riders. we need better access,parking, particularly pedestrian connections, mobility solutions for those who have individualneeds. and we need to recognize we are now a region of multiple activity centers andtwo-thirds of them really will depend on high quality transit for their success. we wantto be part of and a leader in providing that.
and then fourthly as a goal, we have to befinancially stable. we have to have a serious conversation about what is the region readyto invest in to have good transportation service. we will work with our regional and our federalpartners, hopefully, developing a predictable and reliable funding source, both for ongoingoperation, ongoing rebuilding and future investment. we need to invest for the long-term. theseare all physical assets with long, but not infinite lives. we have to put them in placeand then we have to renew them from time to time.i was thinking this morning rhode island avenue station is almost 40 years-old. i was herewhen it first opened. and a couple of weeks ago the bolts gave way on the stairway thattakes workers from the platform down onto
the track and the stairway fell over intothe track. 40 years-old, that's what happens. it happens in your house. it happens everywhere.we need to be working on that. we need to improve our efficiency. we needto give confidence that we operate effectively, focus on key cross-drivers, improve our businessprocesses, use technology better, that's all part of developing the confidence that weneed. we need to be green, use technologies andpractices to reduce our consumption of natural resources and we need good people. a goodsystem will attract good people, but we would have to keep them and work with them.we look at two time frames in terms of this future system. one we call metro 2025. wehave a sense of what the population will be
then. it's pretty easy to project and notas difficult as looking 50 years in the future. we need to have these improvements to ourcapacity to optimize in the next dozen years what we can do. squeezing again every lastbit of capacity. during rush hours, we are committed to runningthe longest possible trains we can to give the most run for our customers. that meanseventually eight car trains throughout the system. we don't have that number of carstoday. we are getting closer to it with what we are now purchasing. we will have to gobeyond that. we need to --chairman bryant: what -- mr. downey: -- once we have those longer trainswith more people, we need to reconfigure our
stations. those of you who might use galleryplace nearby here, understand that that doesn't work very well. it was not designed for thenumber of transfer moves that now occur. we've got to reconfigure metro center, gallery place,union station, so that more people can flow smoothly through those stations.we need perhaps underground pedestrian connections. it has been talked about for a long time.farragut north to farragut west, if we make that move, it would make life a lot simpler.actually, people can make it today if you are willing to go up the escalator and useyour fare card and go back in the other station, the free transfer is there. about 500 peoplea day use it. our bus system needs to function more efficientlywith either dedicated lanes or bus priority
or anything that would make sure that thebus moves more competitively than the auto. we need to deal with what our customers wantin terms of information systems. they want it to be timely, accurate, audible, you know.in a world of twitter messages, i get more information out of that than i necessarilydo from anybody else. every minute somebody is saying here is what is going on. we needto be talking about to them. we need to build some key connections withinthe rail system, so we can have greater reliability. there are things called pocket tracks, a pockettrack is where you can store a train and pull it out when you need it or put a train inoff the track if it has had a problem. we need more of those. we don't have enough.we don't have all of the connections we would
need for a smooth system. and we need to belooking at the blue line, those of you who perhaps were down at alexandria know thatyou're getting less service than you were a few years ago, since we had to take thecapacity of the rosslyn tunnel and dedicate more of it to the future silver line. thatmeant more service of the blue line had to go over the bridge and it has really madedifficult travel for a lot of people in that part of the region.we have ideas not yet fully formed on how we can improve that. so that's what we arelooking at in terms of 2025, that's the major focus of our thinking, but we don't want toignore beyond. looking beyond that to 2040, we are in justconceptual thinking about what the system
might look like. we are developing an amendmentto the regional transit system plan, which again is a charter responsibility of metro,but clearly and effort we do on behalf of the entire region to look at what would weneed to significantly expand our ridership and our service.some people think all we need to do is extend service further out in the suburbs. that'snot going to work. more trains coming in and nowhere to put them in the core is not -- justnot going to work. we have to look at core capacity. we have to look at a better bussystem. we have to evaluate possible new crossings of the potomac in order to get that core capacity.we also want to work with others on commuter rail systems, express bus systems and otherelements of what is truly a regional system
that puts us in a position where we can becompetitive. yes, it will all have to be paid for. we havenot developed detailed budgets and plans. we recognize there is a significant pricetag. we think it is worth it in terms of the benefits, but we have to convince others inthe region and in the federal government to do that.for the long-term, we have to continue on a permanent basis the renewal of the systemas its components age. this stewardship requirement will entail investments of roughly a billiondollars a year forever. it's roughly the cycle that the system has. it was built over 40years. it needs to be replaced, largely replaced over 40 years and that's essentially a billiondollar annual commitment.
if we don't do that, we are going to see itslipping back to not only where it was a few years ago, but i would have to say where newyork was when they joined that system in 1981. we don't want to be there. we don't want asystem like that. beyond the renewal effort, enhancements thatwe are proposing for 2025, which simply catches up and uses our capacity would add about $500million a year to the price tag to bring the system to where it needs to be in 2025.we don't have a firm figure at all on 2040, because we haven't really zeroed in totallyon what we need to do, but it would be even more. and we need to have the discussion aboutwhat does that mean to the region? how will that system be warranted?so as it always has, the momentum to rebuild,
sustain and grow metro to support the regionhas to get the backing of all the stakeholders. and to that extent, over the last year, wehave been getting out to talk to people. we have met with more than 10,000 of the region'sresidents. we are getting support and endorsement from governmental agencies, from the businesscommunity, from nonprofit leaders. we are willing to speak with everybody, butwe want to be at the important places first and we want to collaborate with those whohave an influence over what can happen and what kind of a region we want to see. thisis an agency that i think shares the vision that we have of a region that works and astrong transportation component to that. i have read your comprehensive plan. i lovethe transportation chapter, because it says
transit first, parking less. but to do that,we have got to have a system that works. and that's our story. we will be continuing tomeet and talk to people about it. we will start next year on the discussion of kindof legislative and financial commitments that have to be made and i'm hopeful that we willget to where we need to be. and i'm happy to answer any questions you have about thesystem or about the plan. chairman bryant: i noticed that you have agoal of getting to an eight car train. what does a car cost in today's dollars?mr. downey: current cars -- chairman bryant: ish.mr. downey: -- about $3 million per car. chairman bryant: yes.mr. downey: and it doesn't -- just buying
the car is useless, because the system wasdesigned with platforms that are eight cars long, but in a solid decision of what didyou read right now, the power system is really only sufficient to run six car trains.chairman bryant: i see. mr. downey: so we have to back-up with additionalpower, some work on the signal system and a lot of work in the stations, so that ifwe bring in eight cars worth of people, train after train after train, they can get -- frankly,so you can get the people from train 1 off the platform before train 2 arrives. so thereis a lot that goes with it. we are scoping out, at this point, an eightcar train plan that includes all of those elements and making the point it won't makesense to do one without doing all. we are
very -- anticipating with great expectationthe new cars that will deliver so-called 7000 series, which means it's the seventh seriesof cars that have been put on the system. these will be the first that are not tiedto what they oldest cars were able to do. basically said, we have bought new cars andalways made them compatible with the old cars, so that means 1967 technology. these willbe 2020 technology offering both safety improvements and comfort improvements that haven't beenthere before. people i think will love them, but we don't have enough of them yet.chairman bryant: mr. hart? commissioner hart: yes. metro system was agreat system. and the notion that it was bringing people from the suburbs into the city wasone aspect of that service. in fact, it's
a two-way system.i worked in the rosslyn-ballston corridor a number of years ago.mr. downey: and arlington made some decisions about land use that really supported that.commissioner hart: and unfortunately, we don't see that coordination between the transportationsystem and the land use policy decisions made in a lot of the counties. the silver lineis an unfortunate example of where a lot of the station locations are out in no man'sland. they really could have, in a different you know mindset, brought them through moredeveloped areas to encourage that kind of development response which would have helpedto balance your system. mr. downey: you know, i think partially thatis correct and partially the silver line is
a good example. the decision was made notto go straight to dulles airport, but, in fact, go through tysons.commissioner hart: yes. mr. downey: and with three stations in tysonsand with a commitment from the county to redevelop and rezone tysons, i think that will be amodel. as we get further out, a lot is going to haveto happen, but i think in this case the existence of the system and some help from the countiescould actually bring the development to the system.commissioner hart: yes, tysons was a good example, but, you know, as you get furtherout the dulles corridor, i think there is an opportunity lost there. and then the connectionbetween you know, metro and vre and, you know,
mta is a complimentary connection that i didn'thear you say much about. mr. downey: all of those ought to work togetherbetter. one of the key hubs for that is union station. i'm really pleased we have a new-- we are not -- it's not ours, but as a region, we have a new head at the union station redevelopmentcorporation. until recently, she got great vision in termsof what could happen. again, a big job ahead, but metro will be a key part of that, butit will link the other two better. one other comment on the land use. it is inour interest to make this a two-way system. our board heard today at the real estate committeeand will be acting in two weeks on a proposal from gsa to basically give them developmentrights at our branch avenue station out at
the end of the green line. they will finda federal agency to move in there, that will create two-way movement. it will create peoplegoing out of the core, out into prince georges for jobs and we hope it will also be the stimulusfor a much bigger redevelopment out of branch avenue and at a lot of other places in thesystem where we could do the same. we want to be partners to do that.chairman bryant: okay. we have mr. may and then beth.commissioner may: first of all, i just want to say the importance of the metro systemitself can never be understated. i think that, you know, as a planning body you have to recognizethat it is the single most important thing that has occurred here in the last 40 years.chairman bryant: peter, can you hit your mike?
commissioner may: sorry. it's the single mostimportant thing that has happened here to essentially save the city from becoming somethingreally that we would-- what we would really not want it to be. just it's so essentialand so important and we need to rekindle the kind of vision that went into establishingthat system back in the '60s when everybody was still just driving cars.and you know at the capitol they are making plans for giant parking garages underneaththeir lawns. mr. downey: and freeways going right throughand onto the mall. commissioner may: with freeways and everything.and it was just such a visionary thing to get it done and get it established. unfortunately,i have been in washington since '77, so a
year after the system opened and i have alwayshad the benefit of using it. but it just has been such an important thing.the second thing is that in every one of the discussions that i have heard in the lastfew years about the state of the metro system and of wmata generally, is the funding issueand the lack of a dedicated funding stream. and you threw out some numbers. there was$150 million in 2008. is that a recurring amount?mr. downey: that is a recurring amount. in 2008, congress passed -- it actually was anational rail legislation. caboose was the metro title. it provided $1.5 billion over10 years as a unique federal contribution. so we have some stability. we know -- we hopeit will be there. it does have to be appropriated
every year.commissioner may: right. mr. downey: senator mikulski does a very goodjob of protecting that for us. commissioner may: right.mr. downey: but that isn't forever. that is for 10 years. we need to renew that. we alsoparticipate very heavily in the national federal transit program. we are very pleased of twothings in the most recent reauthorization. number one, the formula was changed. it actuallygave us more money, based on our needs. and secondly, it authorizes but does not yetfund what are called new start investments. this is the kind of money that has gone tobuild new systems around the country. they have now opened up the possibility of fundingcore capacity needs. our system has been dealt,
but not it is so successful it needs morecapacity. so we think in both those cases, we couldgenerate some federal support, but we also will need to generate very strong regionalsupport. commissioner may: so you also mentioned wasit a $500 million that you need per year to --mr. downey: yes, a half a billion a year for roughly 10 to 12 years to get the 2025 --commissioner may: 2025. mr. downey: -- in place.commissioner may: and at that moment, that money is not there?mr. downey: nope, there is none of that in sight.commissioner may: okay. so i don't know what
actions we get to take about this as a commission,but i think that whatever we can say, we obviously can't -- we don't have money like that tocontribute to the cause, but i mean anything that we can say or do to -- in support offunding that shortfall, because that's essentially what it is.i mean, 2025 we are not talking about huge growth. we are talking about essentially keepingpace. mr. downey: keeping pace with the growth thatwill happen -- commissioner may: exactly.mr. downey: -- between now and then. commissioner may: and so this is a known shortfallthat we must recognize right now. so whatever we can do, as strongly as we can do it tosupport that, i think is -- would be a very
important thing for this commission to do.mr. downey: um-hum. chairman bryant: ms. white and then mr. dixonand then mr. miller. commissioner white: well, first, i wantedto commend metro, the board in particular and you individually for your leadership.and the importance of metro stepping up to be the leader in this region is really soimportant to what peter was just saying. having spent a former life at the chicagotransit authority and having worked with you on making sure that transit authorities takethis kind of step and very few do. very few take on a strategic plan and do it in theway that metro has done it to build that sort of support, at the same time that you arelooking at these very hard business decisions.
so i really commend you and thank you forbeing here. and it says a lot that you are here as a board member to present this tous. so we really support you and what you are doing and it's nice to see you again.mr. downey: i have a strong belief it can be done. when i went to new york in 1981,they were investing about $200 million a year in the system, which is basically nothing.over the -- now it has been a long time, 35 years, they have now spent $75 billion andstill have a lot of work to be done. but we made the case, that was the first effortwas to make the case. and if you wanted to still have a new york or cta you had to makethe case, if you still want to have a chicago, here is what has to be done.bluntly, if you don't do it, the system will
go down the drain. so help us get that messageacross. commissioner white: absolutely.mr. downey: yes. commissioner arrington: mr. chairman, i thinki'll follow-up on peter's comment to start with. i think we should consider some typeof a letter that we could send that they could direct, we could be coached on how to do this,that indicates that we obviously know and recognize how important the transit systemis to our mission as the national capital planning commission.i mean, we can't -- it's a very critical spine or structure that we need and we could justspeak to that with authority, i think. i now want to get into my -- first of all,i don't want to -- i don't have to recuse
myself on this one. even i have been aroundmany times. i think we have crossed paths and came in. i have been here before, butyou came in just as the government started off and i can reflect that we have been around.so my beard is coming and going, but my hair is gray, so we have been around for a while.i remember my first exposure to the metro system was with jack graham walking throughthe tunnels. mr. downey: walking or riding --commissioner arrington: he used to drive his motorcycle through the tunnels, but he rides-- he is a hands-on kind of guy, but that was my first experience and i was just freshlyelected to government and he took us through and showed it to us and the promises ongoing.i also would just mention that the metro police
was put in place because of a resolution iput through the council of the district of columbia to establish the metro police.i also will say from a business standpoint, which is why i don't recuse myself, that wedesigned the first fiber optics network that is now in the metro system, my company did.that was one of my first projects that my company, my business started and did. andwe went back and reevaluated your fiber network a few years later and did a lot of communicationswork in those tunnels to make sure that they were working.and that leads me to something i have been trying to promote. i think that having seenmetro systems all over the world, there is a lot more displaced monitors that are usedfor communication, for safety, for information.
you have people that can't hear. we have tohave pictures. and i know that the fiber is there, i speak as someone who is knowledgeableabout that, to connect. i also think that it could be structured properlyas a business proposition, some cable company or a new cable operation to bring in the monitorsand hook it up and make it work with the advertising that would come through. and i think it woulddo a lot to help with the safety, the scheduling, the information, etcetera.the other thing i -- at least i have a couple more points. but the other one i've been tryingto lobby with some of your board members, i got you now in front of me, is the ideathat land use is a big part of your business. there has been talk of your headquarters movingfrom downtown, you make a lot of money on
that property i think right now to help withthat budget, at least one shot. maybe you could rent it and make you the owner. i don'tknow how it works. but moving your headquarters, there was sometalk about bringing it to anacostia, east of the river, whether that will happen i don'tknow, but that would be -- we would probably welcome you over there. you could do a lotfor us. the land use over top of these metro stations,i would like to think about whether or not, certainly in our area, day care, some daycare capacity, state of the art day care capacity with the recreational facilities for the kidsto be on top is the safest place in that area, because day care is a way to break throughfor young single parents to get into the job
market.and i don't know whether it would be an ideal place for them to drop and go and keep going.mr. downey: we have some great examples of that around the country.commissioner arrington: well, i hope that that is -- because we are talking about itnow and what we are going to do with these congress lights in the anacostia station.so land use is part of your system. when you mention that and, obviously, you all justpassed something to move forward on, so day care is what i was -- wanted to mention interms of what might be useful. and i think that -- i'm also seeing a lotof trolley and other competitive forms of transportation, which i think really can beuseful to strengthen the metro. and i think
that --mr. downey: metro is the backbone of everything else --commissioner arrington: i understand. exactly right.mr. downey: -- to connect to it. commissioner arrington: but just rememberone thing though, brazil just had a very serious riot, maybe still rioting.mr. downey: over fares. commissioner arrington: over fares that wentup on poor people. so it don't matter what you may want to build, you've got to thinkabout how much money you need. you've got to be careful how you do it, because that'swhat busted the seams in brazil just recently. mr. downey: on the land use question, we hada conversation at the board meeting this morning.
we have what we call key performance indicators.are the trains on time? is safety getting better? we have added one that's not fullyfleshed out yet, but to measure what impact metro is having vis-a-vis regional developmentand it will be to look at how much of the new employment and new population is fallinginto the areas adjacent to the stations and the bus stops.it is very high. we want to keep it that way. commissioner arrington: um-hum.chairman bryant: mr. miller? commissioner miller: mr. chairman, yes, i'llbe brief. just to associate -- well, thank you very much for that excellent presentationand to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues, particular, mr. peter may,about you can't state it enough the importance
of the metro to the region and to the districtof columbia, in particular the economy, the environment, the transportation.and the mayor and the council have each endorsed momentum and i would agree with my colleaguesthat this body should somehow find a way to endorse it formally as well.mr. downey: we can't take the system for granted. frankly, for a while, the region took it forgranted and the management and the board took it for granted and that's where it was in2009 and we are trying to put it back to where it ought to be.chairman bryant: i'm going to call on mr. socks.mr. socks: mr. chairman and other commission members, we are expecting that metro willbe coming back to us in september asking for
an official endorsement. but prior to that,we will ask the staff to review it against our policies and plans and make a recommendationto you concerning the endorsement. chairman bryant: okay. all right.mr. downey: we would be honored is you would be willing to do that.chairman bryant: mr. provancha? commissioner provancha: okay. a couple ofcomments as a customer. mr. downey: yes. a paying customer, right?commissioner provancha: followed by some complimentary comments.commissioner white: oh dear. commissioner provancha: to make it fair andbalanced. caught up in the orange line debacle last night and then the previous one wheresome how or another an operator is able to
take control of the -- of an orange line trainand turn south and proceed along the blue line to arlington cemetery. i believe thathas happened twice. i don't know how mechanically or if they have --mr. downey: i know it happened and i -- commissioner provancha: -- usurped controlfrom central command that they are able to do that? it's a bit frightening and disconcertingto the folks that -- mr. downey: the assurance ofthat -- commissioner provancha: -- you hear an announcementand you follow the instructions and then it goes wherever it wants to go.mr. downey: yes. we don't know yet why it did that.commissioner provancha: i think clearly some
safety issue there.mr. downey: i will say hearing all of the facts about it, it was not an unsafe thingto have happened. the train just suddenly became a blue line train and followed therules and the directions that a blue line train would follow. but all of its customerswere headed in that direction. commissioner provancha: being on that trainand observing the flurry of activity and the disembarking of the operator and the folksthat converged and the lack of communication, it didn't appear that there was -- it wasunder control. a question about it and i don't know if thepower is related, too. we noticed some, particularly on the orange line, signage latency. for example,the train will show up and it will show -- and
the sign will so indicate the train is fourminutes away or it will be gone and it will still say boarding.mr. downey: yes. yes, that system was pid, passenger information display, or state ofthe art 25 years ago. commissioner provancha: starting to degrade.mr. downey: you can go almost anywhere and find something that is far better than thatand that's our goal. i think you probably have seen the screens that are in the -- bythe kiosks, new screens, better readable, better information with fiber ability to deliverthe information. we can and we will do better. i'm going to spend august in china.commissioner provancha: not having these -- participant: going to hong kong.mr. downey: i spent three days in hong kong.
commissioner provancha: not currently havingthese lay-by tracks in the system, is that why you might be standing at a station, i'lluse an example of the orange and the blue line, you want the blue line to go in onedirection and two, three, four orange line trains come along?mr. downey: that's partly a function of what the scheduling is. there are more blue lines-- more orange line trains scheduled than blue lines.commissioner provancha: i see. mr. downey: but if we had the pocket tracks,we would -- and one of them caused a problem, we could get it off and get it out of theway and, you know, come back after the rush hour to move it out. not with the customerson it with just the operator.
commissioner provancha: the rush hour expresstype of situation, has that been in place long enough to consider it a success and thatwill be a permanent -- mr. downey: the rush+ service?commissioner provancha: yes, sir. is that going to be a permanent --mr. downey: it has been -- commissioner provancha: -- option?mr. downey: -- a success. it has been a success for those people who got better service. theblue line riders from alexandria do not consider it to be a success and we need to deal withthat, but overall it is working and it will allow us to transition smoothly to silverline opening, at which point there will be somewhat fewer orange trains, silver trainscoming in at falls church and joining blue
line trains under the river.commissioner provancha: we at the department --mr. downey: the capacity under the river at rosslyn, that's the choke point, yes.commissioner provancha: we at dod are strong supporters of the -- we have the largest masstransit benefit subsidy program with more than 30,000 participants and more than $40million in annual benefits. over $50 million during the arra supplements.mr. downey: yes, that has been really good for the system. so many of our riders arefederal employees and due to the executive order that president clinton signed when iwas there and the congress making it permanent, all those employees were getting all of theirtransit paid for until the congress didn't
pass the legislation.it continued suddenly a year ago, the benefit was cut in half and we saw it in terms ofridership. some people said, gee, at this level of subsidy, i'm going to go back toa carpool. that was fixed but only temporarily. we are going to make a major effort to fixit, but we appreciate certainly what dod has done.we also appreciate another service, the coast guard, which i used to be an officer in, whosigns an agreement with us today to fully subsidize bus service to their new headquartersat st. elizabeths. they are picking up the tab. they are buying the buses. it will befree to their employees. and we think it's a great thing for them to be doing.commissioner provancha: very much so.
mr. downey: and you have been doing the samewith respect to the mark center. commissioner provancha: right. yes, we havebeen -- we subsidize that. we made an agreement with alexandria dash system and dod --mr. downey: and with us as well. commissioner provancha: -- to invest morethan $4 million a year to make that happen. we appreciate wmata stepping forward and volunteeringherself to nominate and to lead the regional planning, but aren't -- are you in competitionthough with other designated groups like northern virginia regional commission, who have thatas a charter role? mr. downey: there are a lot of groups.commissioner provancha: that you would normally partner with?mr. downey: we are trying to partner. we are
partnering with them. there is a considerableoverlap between our board and the northern virginia board, so they do work together.it can get complicated, but we try to sort it out. we think somebody has to be the faceto the public to say what do you want and how can we make it happen.commissioner provancha: right. one other area i think that is absolutely good in seamlessoperations is in the area of security emergency management.mr. downey: um-hum. commissioner provancha: i know that our pentagonforce protection agency works very closely with your transit police.mr. downey: with our police force, yes. commissioner provancha: it's a good communication.the last question is about capacity. for those
of us that have centralized operations thatwould like to disperse our assets across the system, do you have capacity information forus at the various stops that would tell us --(simultaneous speaking). mr. downey: we could start planning to partnerwith you, if you would do that. again, that's one of the reasons we have been talking togsa about locating federal officers at places where we have significant capacities.commissioner provancha: branch avenue model sounds like a good one.mr. downey: yes, yes. commissioner provancha: very good. thank youagain for your presentation. mr. downey: thank you.chairman bryant: thank you. sensing no further
commission comments, mr. williams, did youhave a comment? mr. williams: thank you, mr. chairman. i dohave a suggestion and it's this. as the secretary knows, i read her notes about the tentativeagenda regularly. chairman bryant: you have no life whatsoever,do you? mr. williams: pardon?chairman bryant: you have no life whatsoever. mr. williams: i do. this conversation thatwe are having today wasn't on the tentative agenda. it came along later and it has beenwonderful and i'm concerned that if you go forward with this endorsement, it needs tobe known by the ncpc community, the leadership, if you will, so i would like to suggest thatsomehow you do an email blast about having
received this and so that when it comes upin september, it isn't going to appear like a stealth endorsement, but i look -- i'llgo to that, because i can see where to go. but i think there may be others that may bea little surprised because it just slipped in and is enjoying a summer thing and we knowwhat happens when things happen that are not planned during august. thanks so much.chairman bryant: thank you. as we all know, we don't meet in august. it's the one monthof the year we don't meet, so we will review the strategic plan over august and we willdetermine whether to and if so the legalities of any endorsement pursuit. so we will beback in september for that. and will be properly noticed, i can assure you.with that, does staff have anything else?
anything else before us?thank you. it has been a long meeting. i did want to note that mark olinger, who is theplanning director from the city of richmond, virginia, my hometown, has visited with ustoday. i would like to thank staff or having spent some time with him and for the commissionfor being on your best behavior in front of a guest.so thank you very much and we are adjourned.