Legislative Route 1 Sycamore Allee

Transcription

CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Good afternoon and welcome to the National Capital Planning Commission's October 6, 2011 meeting. If you would, please, all stand with me and join in the pledge of allegiance. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you. Notice to all that today's proceedings, as usual, are being live streamed on the web. Noting the presence of a quorum we'll call the meeting to order and proceed along the agenda as has been advertised. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 1 is Report of the Chairman and I'll simply say that we had on September 13th we had a very successful one day full day interagency security task force meeting where we have been looking at the incorporation of good design principles with appropriate security measures for the Federal Triangle area. On September 13th Bill Dowd and Mina Wright and Austin Smith of the Interagency Security Committee all had presentations so those were representing three good partnership agencies. In the morning session Brian Michael Jenkins, who is the senior advisor and security export at RAND, was the keynote speaker and he talked about the evolving nature of the threat that we have to be very mindful of in the Nation's Capital. We also had DHS briefings or presentations. The Mitre Corporation was here and had their experts discussing their systems approach to geographic areas. The afternoon session focused not on the security side but on the urban design side. Frank Giblin of GSA, Alan Ward of Sasaki, Rob Rogers of Rogers Marble, and Tom DeNeer of AIA were all here and talked about techniques and very good examples of where we have had successful security and planning efforts in an urban landscape and other places. Then we had an open round table discussion at the end of the day so it was a very good day, very productive. We had all the right people, the key people, key agencies involved. I have to give a lot of credit to Bill Dowd and his team for organizing a very good event. That ends the Chairman's Report. Any questions on that? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Hearing none, Agenda No. 2 is Report of the Executive Director, Mr. Acosta. MR. ACOSTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good afternoon. We just have a few announcements to make. First of all, in response to the Eastern Commission Retreat that we held earlier this year, as well as the Plain Writing Act, staff is proposing a new format for agency's recommendations and actions. I have attached samples that are included in your packet of this new proposal. The new format is designed to make the documents easier to read and understand by highlighting key information and better outlining our review process. In addition to the formatting changes, staff is focusing on lighting recommendations in a more clear and concise manner and incorporate graphics more effectively. We welcome your feedback on the new format. If you have any comments, please send those to Deborah Young. I've also solicited feedback on the new format from the public over the next 30 days to our website. After the feedback period and any revisions that we might make we anticipate using this format effective January 2012. In addition, on Tuesday, October 18th at 6:30 p.m. , CVC in the Embassy of Canada will welcome Canadian architect Bing Thom, designer of D.C. 's new Arena Stage. Mr. Thom will explore the legacy of mid century modernism in Washington and how to preserve the recent past while embracing the future. The event will be held at the Embassy of Canada right here on Pennsylvania Avenue. We hope the Commission and members of the public are able to attend. Finally, some very good news. The monumental core framework plan was selected for an American Society of Landscape Architects 2011 Professional Honor Award, only one of 37 awarded nationally. This is a very important award for the Commission. I would like to thank the Commission for their support and also to the project staff, Bill Dowd, Elizabeth Miller, Shane Dettman, Stephanie Brown, Paul Jutton. Also our partners at the Commission of Fine Arts. Also our consulting team. I see Joe Brown in the audience of AECOM and their staff Alan Harwood and Ryan Boma. Congratulations to you all. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Terrific. Thank you. MR. ACOSTA: That concludes my report. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: And here's the announcement on the Arena Stage discussion that we are doing in conjunction with the Embassy of Canada. It will also be, if it's not already, on NCP website. We hope we have a good turnout for that. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Item 3 on the agenda is the legislative update. Ms. Schuyler. MS. SCHUYLER: I don't have anything to report, sir. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Then agenda Item No. 4 is the consent calendar. We have five items. Item 4A is the Electric Generating Equipment at Fort McNair. 4B is the Electric Generating Equipment at Joint Base Myer Henderson Hall. 4C is the Water Tank and Building 10 Sireless Telecommunications Antennas at the Naval Surface Warfare Center. 4D is Site improvements and Perimeter Security at the Federal Reserve Building. Last, 4E, is the Temporary Emergency Boiler Stack System at Central Heating and Refrigeration Plant. Any questions on the consent calendar? Hearing none, is there a motion on the consent calendar? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: So moved. COMMISSIONER McGILL: Second. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: It's been moved and seconded. All in favor of adopting the consent calendar, say aye. ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no. It's adopted. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Next on the agenda is a terrific presentation on the Eisenhower Memorial. This is an information session. No votes are being taken today. It's our opportunity to hear from the design team and others on their progress, what has changed since the last time they were before us, what are some of the outstanding remaining issues there might be, and to have a general conversation. Again, no votes are being taken today. It's an information session only. The Section 106 process is still going on and that's been very productive. Issues are being resolved in that very form and so it's moving on. We have to quick it off Shane Dettman from staff. MR. DETTMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission. Good afternoon. Staff is going to be giving you a very, very, very brief introduction on the steps that have been taken thus far in establishing this memorial to President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Then we'll be handing it off to the design team for its update on the refinements that it's made with its preferred alternative and the positive progress that it has made on that particular alternative since the Commission last saw this project back in February. Very, very quickly, Congress authorized the development of the establishment of this memorial back in 1999 through passage of a public law. Also in addition to authorizing the creation of the memorial created the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial Commission. What you see there is a 12 member commission. Subsequent to the original authorization Congress passed two secondary pieces of legislation. One which essentially authorized the location of the memorial within Washington, D.C. or its environs. Then, lastly, back in May 2006 Congress passed a law to authorize the Memorial within Area 1 which is identified in the 2003 amendments of the Commemorative Works Act. Happening concurrently with the Congressional Act the Eisenhower Memorial Commission conducted a thorough site selection process that looked at 26 sites and ultimately selected what was referred as the Maryland Avenue site which is highlighted in this Orange Circle there on the map. This is just a closer look at the site. It's bound by Independence Avenue, 4th and 6th Streets in the Department of Education Headquarters Building in the south. The Maryland Avenue right-of-way runs through the middle of the site. You can see the site in relation to the buildings that surround it. In September 2006 the Commission approved this site with a collection of design principles that were also subsumed into the Commission's NEPA FONSI for this project. The Commission last saw this project in February of 2011. This is the site plan that the Commission took an action on in addition to two other alternatives that the Commission reviewed and provided comments on. Actually, no formal action has been taken on this project and this is just a picture of the model. Finally, the last slide. I'm not going to go through this in detail but this is the comments that the Commission offered on this particular alternative of the project. These were provided to you in advance of today's meeting and hopefully you had a chance to take a look at them. The comments that were provided were relative to the design principles that were adopted at the site selection stage. With that hopefully that gives you a little bit of background on the project. I would like to hand it over to the design team for them to give you an update on the developments that have been made to the preferred alternative since February. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Good afternoon. Welcome. Please identify yourself. MR. REDDEL: I'm Carl Reddel, Executive Director of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, as a representative of the Eisenhower Memorial Commission I am accompanied today by the Chairman of our Commission, Rocco Siciliano from Beverly Hills, California. Also Commissioner Alfred Geduldig from New York City. Also Senior Advisor to the Commission Professor Louis Galambos of Johns Hopkins University who advises us out of the context of his role as the Editor of the 21 volumes of the Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower which were completed near 2001. Speaking to you today taking advantage of some of the information you have already received, the importance of us being an expression of the will of the American people in that the Congress of the United States established this roughly 50 years, a half-century, after President Eisenhower completed his life long service to the country of the United States. Without elaborating on the makeup of the Commission itself, for us as a small staff it's been a great advantage to have the continuity of the Commission's leadership. We have especially been pleased with the kind of knowledge and in depth experience and support we get from our Vice Chairman Senator Daniel Inouye from Hawaii who, as you know, has been part of multiple memorialization projects here in the capital of the United States and elsewhere in the United States. We are entering the second decade of our existence. We held our first meeting in the year 2001 so we are conscious of the passage of time in a particular way in the context of other presidential memorials as well. Particularly from the year 2005 we moved with what I would call rapid but deliberate speed and that speed has been due to the fact that we've had this continuity of leadership from our congressional leaders. It has also been due to the fact that there seems to be a timeliness with this president's memorialization as the realization of the substance of his contributions have continued to grow. The reason perhaps more pertinent to our meeting today is that the design team has proven itself to be flexible, proven itself to be responsive, and has had in mind the multiple concerns that are part of such a complex project such as this. The fact that Gehry Partners, AECOM, Gilbane Construction, GSA, and others have worked so well together and that we have enjoyed the leadership of the National Park Service as our lead agency has meant that we have moved faster perhaps than others would have anticipated. The design of the memorial has benefitted from the review process in a very particular way. You might imagine I would especially be mindful of the first meeting with the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission. As a result of that review process we were driven to verify and authenticate and validate why such a preeminent location should be there in perpetuity for this citizen of the United States, Dwight David Eisenhower. In that process we learned a great deal about the president and the thematic context of this site is dramatically appropriate. Eisenhower had a life long personal commitment to freedom and he knew that freedom didn't mean anything unless you were healthy, educated, and had a sense of well being. He created the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. I could go on speaking about that thematic context. Having to meet and consult with the National Capital Memorial Advisory Commission was appropriate, helpful, and useful. We are in much the same posture, of course, as you well know, with the Commission of Fine Arts. We were directly affected, I believe, by their guidance on the artistic quality and the aesthetic direction of the design and where it should go. In fact, just this past month we had a meeting which was summarized in a good letter of the 22nd of September, copies of which we have available if anyone would care to see and look at that. At that meeting they gave strong support to the revised configuration that has been developed by the design team. They commended the overall height and scale of the columns and of the tapestries and they express support for the landscape image which is such an integral part of the tapestry. We are really here today to speak to you to experience the same advantage that we have with the other review dimensions of what we are about to benefit from that and to move forward with this memorial to such a great American. In a very simple way he is one of the best pieces of evidence that we have that the American experiment works. He came from no advantage of family, no advantage of money with a pretty straightforward education. He came to enjoy the respect and the affection of not only his fellow citizens but of much of the world. It's a great story to share at this particular time in our history. We as a result of the design team's professionalism and effectiveness are on budget and on schedule. We would like to continue this collaborative spirit which has gotten us to this stage with your assistance and with your help. But I feel a particular sense of urgency and excitement about where we're at. That is driven in part by my own age, I guess, perishability as time goes on, because our leadership is still rooted in the war that Eisenhower led so many thousands of Americans to their deaths in the process of destroying the German war machine. These people pass by the hundreds daily. Two of my senior leaders are combat veterans of World War II. Senator Daniel Inouye, as you know, daily carries to his meetings the missing arm as a souvenir of that. In a unit alongside Senator Inouye's unit was our Chairman's unit, the 10th Mountain Division, in the Italian theater. These gentlemen look at me and say, "Press on. Let's get it done." Of course, being a bit younger, I'm aware of the Korean War veterans. Eisenhower ended effectively two worlds, the Korean War being the last. We appreciate your support, your cooperation and I am really privileged and pleased to be with you here today. Frank. MR. GEHRY: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I'm honored to be back again. We did spend a lot of time with the various commissions, the various stakeholders. We listened carefully to their comments and we responded as best we can retaining the integrity of the original design. The idea of the original design was to create a precinct that unified the three major buildings that surround it. That became the idea of a tapestry. We've done a lot of research since then. Something like that has never been done before as far as I know. We've gone and wide to Japan and China, Rhode Island, Germany, wherever people weave these things and have come up with several possible solutions to them. One of them we have evidence of here, or a couple of them. What became crucial to this was to create an image that had transparency so it didn't affect the views from the Education Building, especially to the outdoors. We also wanted to create a special kind of entrance to the Department of Education and created a walkway between the tapestry and the building which is a very special kind of space. In the original scheme -- I don't have a slide of it but these tapestries were parallel to Independence Avenue. The main tapestry came right out to the streets on each side. This is the original plan and the original tapestries with the columns. The columns were designed structurally. That's what set the size of them. They originally -- in the original design the engineer said they had to be 12 feet in diameter. Since then we've refined them to 11 feet so we slimmed them down. I think there were comments along the way that people thought they should be slimmer. Somehow they are and there is good reason to be. We pulled back the main tapestry to expose the educational building on both sides so that somebody passing by sees it and it creates a more generous entrance on each side. The tapestries perpendicular to the main tapestry and to Independence Avenue seem more appropriate in creating a space in the garden and enclosing it. The imagery of the tapestry has been a lot of time, a lot of discussion. We've had Eisenhower experts, as you know, Lou Galambos who is the preeminent Eisenhower scholar, and others discussing over and over what the appropriate imageries were. We started out very early before we landed in the competition, before we presented the final competition, with an image of the Normandy beachhead which is quite a beautiful image. Along the way that seemed to be focusing Eisenhower on war and he was much more than that. In his own memoirs he doesn't downplay it but he's uncomfortable with war as we all are. More and more we realize that this was a man who felt his roots from Abilene, Kansas. Even though he wasn't born there he talked about it all the time. In his Guildhall speech in London he mentioned Abilene several times. We went there. We saw the site. We spent time and it had a resonance for this man's core and essence, his humility, his sense of where he came from, the heartland of America 400 miles from the geographic center of the United States. It was so compelling to us that we explored this idea on the tapestry. The trees are sycamore trees that are native to Abilene and, by the way, very comfortable in Washington, D.C. The idea of adding to his story the issue of Eisenhower the soldier, Eisenhower the president, is very much on our minds. We focused on the Guildhall speech and his final speech when he left the presidency. We are working with Lou Galambos and our advisers to determine just how we should represent that. We have shown them -- we have the pictures of him with the soldiers, with his men, which is very compelling. We have pictures of him giving speeches as the president. We tried 10 or 12 or more of the obvious things one does when you do set up a photograph like this. We explored his image on those tapestries. We explored his image as a soldier. Done of them had the resonance that this had for this site, for this time, this place. We focused on solving the issues of the tapestry, the imagery of the tapestry, and then how to represent Eisenhower. In his speech when he returned to Abilene he talks with very modest humility, etc. He doesn't go in and blow his horn about, "I'm the great guy that solved all these things." He talks about the barefoot boy who went on this odyssey. My God, what an odyssey it was and what I've experienced. It was so beautifully written." I still come back here still thinking to myself this is the barefoot boy from Abilene." We've searched through the photographs and we found this one photograph of him. I don't know how hold he was but the young Eisenhower. We are exploring the possibility of making a three-dimensional representation of that that will sit in kind of the center of the main tapestry on a block which will have carved in the stone the speech, "The Barefoot Boy from Abilene" and this image or something like it. We've been exploring how to make that and who makes it and we are well down the way to getting there. It's not just another bronze statue so that it has residence and feeling to it. That's what we hope to achieve. The issue of the military Eisenhower and the President Eisenhower we have several locations to place that. We analyzed putting in these gardens so they would be separate. The idea that you separate those issues seems to lead to three memorials instead of one and we are very focused on that. I lived through Larry Halprin's years on the Roosevelt Memorial and it did get -- it became an episodic and different. It has a beautiful garden. We are trying to emulate the Lincoln Memorial. It's very simple. There's a statute of the man. He happens to be in a Greek temple. And his sayings next to him. It's so powerful when you reduce this to a minimal statement that we are struggling with where to put these other images and how to do them. I'm hoping they will be centralized in this area so you don't have to walk around. The garden is a garden. It's a place people can come and experience the garden and use it as a garden and not hit them over the head with a lot of stuff that they have to look at and read. They can plug into their iPhones or iPads and sit and contemplate his speeches and hear him making the speeches. We think the modern techniques overcome the need to pummel people with information. They can get it. They can enjoy it and they get it perfectly. We are exploring using the stone relief idea for the images of Eisenhower as President Eisenhower and military which we showed earlier which is a very strong one. It's more difficult to make an image of him as the President. We are looking for a better one. There is one with him with the globe? Do you have that one? No? I guess you don't. Anyway, he's standing with a globe of the world but it seems a little over the top for his personality. We like these two images because they seem to represent him more carefully. You see it's a struggle to define this as an essence and to keep the sense of a whole and the park and to -- what other slides do I have? I don't remember. Finding the way to make this tapestry and this is just one way. There are examples here being made on the Jacquard loom. The issue is getting the transparency. When we found a way to do it in a handmade way, it quickly took it into an art form instead of a photograph. As we work on it we plan to get less and less photographic. The transparency of it is what we are counting on so that it won't be overwhelming. It will be part of the park. It will be transparent. You will see the buildings behind them and the image will be there. Finally the modesty will be this young boy and whatever the references are to the military and the President sort of focused in the center in a very modest way. The park and the tapestries will be backgrounds. I think it will be -- The tapestry at night has an interesting personal. It changes with the light. We'll be able to -- we are planning to work on the lighting of this park so that it can be used for events to celebrate events in Eisenhower's life. We've created a terrace that you can see where speeches could be given and used as a focal point for events in the park. The one other very important issue is the cartway to the Capitol. We've made it -- this is Einstein Walk at Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies where I just spent some time. This is Fuld Hall and the President's house is an allee like this. In our case these will be farther apart, as you can see, but make it part of the garden. From the street side you look out and you get the view of the Capitol very strong. The changes we made moving this tapestry, pulling back, widened the opening to the Capitol so we listened to the critique of the past meetings and we feel very comfortable that this addresses those issues. I'm sure we'll have -- in the spirit of Eisenhower we are going to listen as much as we can. We know that there are differences of opinion on all of these issues. As best we can we are happy to listen to them. Thank you. Craig Webb, my partner, is going to go through the details and address the seven -- what are they called? MR. WEBB: Seven principles. MR. GEHRY: Seven principles. MR. WEBB: Thank you. My name is Craig Webb. I'm a partner with Frank Gehry. What I would like to do is briefly present the difference between the plan that you saw last and the current plan and then go through an explanation of how we are addressing the seven principles that are key to the planning of the memorial. The plan on the left side is the plan we presented last time you see here. The key differences and the changes that we made in response to the comments that we've had have to do firstly with the tapestry itself, the main portion of which has been shortened by one bay. The intent of that is to allow more prominence to the LBJ Education Building. The second major change is to turn the two flanking tapestry elements from a position parallel to Independence Avenue to being perpendicular to the street. We feel this will accomplish a couple things. One, it has created more of a welcoming opening into the site itself. It frames and creates a much more coherent public space. And it creates more transparency to the LBJ Building itself because in this design in portions you're looking through two layers of tapestry and in this design only one layer of tapestry so the transparency of that tapestry is really important. Another key aspect is that in the previous design the Maryland axis was paved and in the current design we are proposing a green space in the center of the site. The proportion of green and lawn space has greatly increased in the new design. There is a much clearer definition of the Maryland axis with the street trees which actually these trees are in alignment with the street trees on either side of the site. I'll show you an image later on that shows that alignment. Then benches and other architectural elements are going to define the edge of the historic cartway, the 50 foot edge. This is the previous design so I'll just reiterate the main points being the shortening of the main tapestry, the turning of these two elements creating a green space in the center. This is a view of the last design we presented to you. You can see the kind of double layering effect of the tapestry elements there. This is the new design and, as you can see, this green space in the center. Another benefit of this design is that the support building, which had previously been within the memorial precinct itself, now sits outside the space that is defined by the tapestry so we feel like that creates a much more appropriate serene space without interruption to that support building. This is an image of the current design proposal. You can see the tapestry element framing this public space. The transparency of the tapestry itself which I think in this retention is actually a little but more pink than the actual. The images of the knock-up of the tapestry, I think, show that there is actually a lot more transparency in the sky element. I just want to go through firstly the design principles that have focused our design and then I'll come to the principles of the planning issues. The first one I want to talk about is the prominence of the Maryland Avenue axis and we feel that, and I think everyone would agree, that this is a fairly ill-defined axis at this point, particularly that moves farther west. We think the design at the memorial is really going to strengthen the Maryland axis in an important way both creating a great public green space, but also helping to frame views and organize the Maryland axis. Part of the driver to the reconfiguration of the tapestries is to create a wider opening that frames views of the Capitol and also to center the Capitol in that view axis. Previously the view of the Capitol columns were framing it in an asymmetrical way. Now it's a very symmetrical framed view. We have spread the columns out so there is now 92 feet between the columns on either side of that view shed. You can see here the view from the west side looking toward the Capitol. One of the elements we think is working quite well is that the trees form a very kind of humanistic lower-level garden space. The tapestry steps up framing the space and then the buildings are the highest element. The tapestry is actually lower than any of the adjacent buildings. It's lower than the Education Building and every single building surrounding the site. It's actually the lowest element on the site. The Maryland Avenue cartway is a very important part of the design so we feel that creating an open space in the center of the Maryland axis rather than placing an object on that center line is really important. We feel like green space is really key to creating a very pleasant garden space. Again, I'll just reiterate this image from Princeton Institute, the Einstein Allee, shows a more manicured lawn in the center and then rougher grass and landscape. I'll go into the landscape a bit further. As Frank said, the trees in this allee will be spread farther apart to really frame views of the Capitol. Just a bit on dimensions. As I said, there is the 50 foot cartway which is the center of the Maryland Avenue axis. These two columns are now 92 feet apart framing that view. The 50 foot separation from the LBJ building is respected and none of the memorial elements come into that 50 foot space. The space from the facade of LBJ to the face of the tapestry is 74 feet currently. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the Independence Avenue right- of-way and building lines. I'm going to go into that in a lot of detail later. This particular column has been in a lot of discussion. I want to point out the fact that it sits well outside of the -- it sits 16 feet outside of the Independence 110 -- foot right-of- way. It is 32 feet from the curb line. It's actually well inside of the 20 foot sidewalk that we are proposing along Independence Avenue. Again, this is showing a closer view, the framed view of the Capitol that is kind of stair-stepping from landscape to columns up to building heights. This also shows a view down the promenade which is the space that we hope in cooperation with the Education Department to really create active uses within that space. I'll talk about that in a minute. In order to create -- I think one of the main values, one of the key principles of design that we've been given is to create a separate distinct outdoor public space that would be a gathering space, a great garden space, and a space that memorializes President Eisenhower so the columns and the tapestry are really key to creating the identify of that space. You can see framed here -- we studied the tree canopy both in the summertime and wintertime so this is a view in the summertime that shows what the tree canopy will be like. You can see that this colonnade and tapestry really create the frame for a very organized public space. The tapestry itself, which is a landscape idea which we feel epitomizes the values of General Eisenhower and President Eisenhower, his roots, the source of his personal journey. To bring the peace of the center of America into the Nation's Capital we think will be a very powerful image. This shows how that tapestry will wrap the space. Another key change from the previous design are the 4th and 6th Street spaces. By pulling these tapestry elements in from the curb line of 4th and 6th Street and by creating a gray zone on either side, we feel like we are creating a better buffer between the Wilbur Wright Building on this side and the Cohen Building on the other side. It really places the street in the center of the space more than -- so by pulling these back we feel like the street spaces are being respected. I'll show you in a minute how views of the LBJ are created there. You can see the street spaces created on either side and then a bit more compression of the memorial core itself. This would be 4th Street. This would be the Cohen Building on this side, the corner of LBJ, and then the tapestry. Then on the other side on 6th Street the corner of LBJ, the Wilbur Wright Building off to this side. This diagram shows important intersections of 6th Street and 4th Street, the view shed to the corner of the LBJ building. Also greater transparency through to LBJ because of the transparency of the tapestry as well as views out of the LBJ building through the tapestry. We spent quite a bit of time with people from the Department of Education. We've gone up into their spaces with the mock- up placed at the appropriate dimension from the building. The transparency is actually working quite well based on the mock up. A little bit about the columns themselves. Their functionality is support the tapestry. The tapestry, as you might imagine, needs to be stretched so that it provides a very flat image which means the tapestry is in a lot of tension. It's set on a cable net. The end columns are the ones that are really taking the load. You can see the columns on either side. The tapestry is really tension between the two of those. The concrete that is required to support that tension requires a nine-foot in diameter concrete column. The nine-feet in diameter we then clad with limestone. We are still exploring different materials but limestone is the key so you can see the idea of a horizontal banding of the individual blocks of limestone and then the vertical banding like that. We had reduced the diameter of the column from 12 feet to 11 feet which is the minimum dimension that we can bring the cladding in. It allows us one foot on either side of the concrete to clad the columns. Eleven feet is about the minimum diameter that we can go to. You can see in this diagram that we have aligned the top of the tapestry with the lowest cornice line of the LBJ building which helps to associate the tapestry and create a better relationship with that building. You can see here that alignment with that lowest step on the LBJ building. In terms of pedestrian circulation on the site, pedestrians will definitely enter from the corners. That's where people will cross the street and coming from adjacent sides and also from the southerly corners. We have created raised landscape on these two corners to direct the pedestrian traffic so that the landscaping doesn't get trampled as people enter the site. We are bringing people through a paved opening on these two corners under tapestry elements which act as gateways and as entry points into the central core of the memorial and then pathways that allow them to circulate. As Frank was saying earlier, these memorial elements we are considering bringing them together more into the center of the site. I think as the design develops, we are going to really start to focus into this central core of the memorial. We intend to move this design along and bring back to this Commission prior to our final submission on October 28th a more finalized design of this central area. We are not quite done yet but we will bring that design back to you before final submission. In terms of landscape, one of the main goals of the project is to create a very beautiful public garden and that has to do with the landscape of the site. The predominance of green space here is really key to this which is why the Maryland axis has been changed to a green walkway. The tree canopy, which will provide shade and create a very pleasant environment under that canopy with spaces for people to sit and enjoy the landscape, that's the kind of garden space we are trying to create. The main species of tree is the sycamore tree which is native both to Kansas, which is the landscape that we are hoping both in tapestry and in the landscape design itself, will be the predominant tree. That's the ones that you see circled in red here. The rest of the tree canopy will be large canopy deciduous trees, mainly different types of oak trees, that will give us a variation so that we don't have just a monolithic culture of trees on the site. The under story will be predominantly turf so the Maryland axis itself will be the most manicured and most often mowed portion. Then there are areas around that that will be a little taller grass but also mowed grass so most of the site is mowed. These arrows that you see in yellow are swales which are a depression in the land which is present in the canvas landscape. It's where a lot of different plant cultures because of the water and ponds in these areas so we are creating those swales on the site and those will be depressed by 18 inches or two feet. The landscaping in those will be taller grasses and other perennial plants so that we are getting variations. It's not just going to be a big lawn. There is going to be variation in height and scale of plant material keeping in mind visibility in the site is really important for security. There's not going to be large hedges are anything like that but a variation in the grasses on there is really important. I talked a little bit this is the promenade so here is LBJ. This is the tapestry across this side. One of the key goals in developing the space, which is actually fairly inactive at this point, would be to create different activities. The center portion, which is a piece that is really shared between the Education Building and the memorial site, has an overlook. This is three feet above the main memorial site. There is a kind of wall and overlook there, a public gathering space. There is a glass canopy that covers this space so in inclement weather it's a very good place, first to view the memorial site, but it also gives people a place to meet and these are the two entries to the LBJ building itself. This space is available for public events and just for kind of gathering and orientation. The space on the left side we had a design workshop with members of the Department of Education. One idea to be explored here is to create a place for the Department of Education to do community outreach and to present their programming in a very public way in this space. On the other side the existing cafe sits there and the idea of creating outdoor dining along that edge is another idea we are exploring. We are continuing a dialogue with the Department of Education. We are actually meeting later this afternoon. Now I would like to quickly go through the seven principles that have been given to us and just talk about how we have addressed each of those. The first principle is to create reciprocal views to and from the Capitol. This is a view from Reservation 113 looking toward the Capitol Building. You can kind of see the stair stepping of landscape which my experience in Washington is that most of the views get framed by trees. They are the predominant element closest to the sidewalk, closest to pedestrians. The tapestry then steps up and centers that view of the Capitol. Then the buildings form the kind of bigger scale side walls to that view. Looking back this is from one of the upper steps of the Capitol. You can see the viewpoint here. It's pretty amazing to see how green that Maryland axis is currently. This is a current photograph. You can see that the tapestry elements are helping to frame what could become in the future a much enhanced Maryland axis that goes farther to the west. There are a lot of challenges to creating that but we think that this memorial site can really set up views looking to the west and hopefully encourage what goes on in the future. Second principle is to create a sequence of public spaces. This is the Eisenhower Memorial site here with the Capitol off in this direction. Reservation 113, which is a very compromised green public space currently, could become the next in this kind of string of pearls along that axis. I think there is potential here but it's a huge challenge to get to that. The rail line interrupts the view and that creates an even greater challenge to create the westerly extension of the axis but we think this is going to be a really important first step to focus that activity. The third is to create an integrated site. Step 1 is to take out the roadway. As you can see, the combination of kind of modern traffic planning which requires left-turn and right-turn lanes, parking and so on, occupies a huge part of that site. By taking roadways out, unifying it as a single parcel, and then creating a green space goes a long way towards making that kind of space. Here is a view so once again you see the tapestry framing the space and the Maryland axis coming through. Again, I would just reiterate the idea of the relationship of the surrounding buildings is really important and so in creating green spaces on either side in respect to the Wilbur Wright Building and the Cohen Building are important. The image down here shows the Air and Space Museum on this side. This is just the tapestry columns and tapestry superimposed over the existing site. I think it shows the way the Air and Space Building really becomes the fourth side of this great public space. Part and parcel with creating the physical part of that is the idea of creating a precinct. The Eisenhower legacy that Carl talked about earlier engages each of the surrounding buildings. The idea with the memorial associates President Eisenhower's participation in air and space, the FAA, education, and health and human services. We think that the memorial will really create a neighborhood, a precinct, and draw those buildings together in a way that they do not currently relate to each other. So in relationship to the L'Enfant Plan which is I think there has been a huge amount of discussion about exactly what that plan implies and how it functions in this area. L'Enfant did not specifically call for a public square at this position but I think that the events have taken place with the position of the rail line and so on. I think the opportunity to create one of those spaces on this site presents itself in a way that could happen now and not wait for a long time in the future. By combining parcels we think this becomes the type of public square that is inherent in the L'Enfant Plan, the creation of the space as a temple, an architectural space in the city, with a green space in the center. It's not like many of the other L'Enfant squares with a statue or building in the center. It's a framed space that is green space. We think that is really appropriate and a different type of space that fits well into that plan. I talked already about the relationship to the LBJ building. To activate this as a public space is really important in responding to principle No. 4 that we are looking at. In discussions about how we reflect the architecture of the surrounding buildings, each of these buildings has a very separate distinct architectural character to them from modernism and an historical building here, the new Museum for American Indians. This is a very diverse set of buildings; Kevin Roche's Air and Space Museum. The idea of using the tapestry as a kind of diaphanous membrane, a very light translucent piece, we think can really start to create a public square out of this space and really work to relate the buildings one to another. As I said previously, this element you can see is lower than each of these buildings so it gives you views around it. It also helps to, I think, frame them and create a coherence out of this space. Just to reiterate again, the idea of the stepping from landscape to tapestry to buildings is really important in the linking of those buildings together. This diagram just shows the heights of the adjacent buildings. As I said before, the 80 feet in height of the tapestry itself is lower than each of these buildings surrounding. I'm not going to go through the heights but this diagram shows that. I would like to talk about the principle building lines and view sheds which is really critical for the planning of the Nation's Capital. First, I have already talked about dimensions here. I want to get into a little more detail on that. The 92 feet of the view shed of the Maryland Avenue axis we think is really important. The width of the cart way and the framing of those views is important. This diagram shows the relationship of the trees on either side of the Maryland axis in relationship to the street trees on either side. There is a definite alignment and continuity of landscape elements which will really strengthen the Maryland axis. In terms of the Independence street wall, or I would say lack of street wall, I would like to talk a little bit about what goes on. This shows the full length of Independence within the neighborhood starting with the Agriculture Department which actually has bridges that cross the street framing a very interesting kind of plaza space in the center there, but also creating kind of a portal into this part of the street heading toward the Capitol. Then you can see the buildings step back and forth pretty radically. A lot of the older buildings are the closest to the sidewalk. Here is the Agriculture Department. These early more historical buildings, this one is actually 16 feet from the curb line so they really crowd in. You can see the street wall moves back and forth. Some of the more modernist buildings step quite a distance back from the curb line. The Hirshhorn becomes an object in itself with no street wall but becomes a kind of spacial definer there, so on and so on. What happens as far as street wall on this site, this one column is not radically different from a lot of the back and forth stepping that happens as you move down Independence Avenue. This shows further down near the Capitol. Again, I just want to reiterate that this column is outside the legally defined Independence Avenue and also well back from both the curb line and the edge of the sidewalk sitting in the garden green space of the site. The final principle that we think we have paid very close attention to would be to create a public green space. I've talked a lot about that so, just to reiterate, this we see as a very important public garden in Washington, D.C. I would like to conclude by saying we believe we have listened and that we have really complied with the principles that have been put before us. We will come back to you very shortly with a final design for the center of the memorial core. MR. GEHRY: I just wanted to make one observation. In the model photographs the opening to the Maryland cart way is exaggerated vertically so I urge you to come and look at it on the model because it's wider in actual perception when you look at it. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Gehry, Mr. Webb. Very good presentation. We appreciate you walking us through how the design has progressed since we last gathered in February. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: At this point there may be some questions among Commission members. Let me turn it inward. Ms. Tregoning. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Thank you. I have a lot of comments so I'll just kind of go through it. First, let me say I got a chance a month ago, I guess, to be with my fellow Commissioners to see the prototypes of the tapestry and how that was kind of being developed. I honestly thought it was dazzling. I thought it was just beautiful. Mr. Gehry, I know that is something you are known for, your innovation of materials, and I thought that it was incredibly beautiful and really a wonderful innovation. I really loved it. Okay. That being said, the problem with Southwest is that it has an overbearing scale and that this -- you know, a lot of what this Commission is trying to do with some of its efforts with the Southwest Ecodistrict and some of the other plans is to actually try to humanize that scale. I think that this is exacerbating rather than contributing to that humanization. Yes, the screens are diaphanous. The columns are still really gargantuan. The whole design is super sized. The relationship of the L'Enfant Street a normal, you know, L'Enfant Street is a 90-foot width. This avenue is 160 feet. The avenues are intended to create this wonderful view so in some ways we are kind of making the view of the Capitol a much more ordinary, and I use the term maybe not so well, pedestrian because I want to get back to pedestrians. We make that view so much more ordinary than I think it needs to be. I think our Historic Preservation Officers talked a little bit maybe to some of your folks about some specific suggestions in terms of that spacing. You successfully went from an 80-foot column spaced 92-feet apart. I think what I would love to see is a 70-foot column spaced 105 feet apart. That would give you a one-and-a-half to one ratio. Right now we have essentially in this area 80-foot buildings and 160-foot right-of- way which is a two to one ratio which is, I think, something that would be more appropriate here. In terms of scale, I'll just point out that the lower blocks of the Air and Space Museum are 68 feet. The columns at the Cohen Building are 71 feet. Getting from 80 to 70 I think would actually help with the scale of this memorial. Let me see. What else did I want to say? I think it's very impressive to see the models. I think they are wonderful but the comment that the Commission members have made, I think, repeatedly is that we would love to see, even in the photographs, more of the perceptive of the park user. If you're in the park, how does the scale feel to you? What are the facilities for you, the user of the park? I think every view that we see gives you a perspective that you will never have of this memorial. You will very rarely have it because, you know, you can't get from this perspective the space making and the place making is actually in the site of the memorial itself. It would be wonderful to see some perspectives of what that is like. As much as I think the screens and the materials you're using are so beautiful, I do know that from 20 feet up I'm losing a lot of the detail. I'm not getting the craftsmanship, the incredible -- the miracle of this thing that you've produced because it starts 20 feet in the air and then goes up 60 feet. It's hard to kind of get those details. One of the things I particularly want to see is what is it from the user's perspective? The pedestrians look dwarfed in that space in this model for a good reason I think. Just to get a sense of what are you doing for the people who are going to be in the memorial where are they sitting. What is their experience of being in the space that you're creating? You mentioned the cafeteria. I'll just make a point about that. GSA is here and they are doing some really marvelous things that the Commission I know is very supportive of, making more of the federal facilities accessible to the public and have plans to do that with their own cafeteria in their remodeled headquarters. I would hope that if the Department of Education is going to be talking about using part of this design to activate the public space that they would also consider making that cafeteria accessible to the public. Those other places in the monumental part of the city where there is a sculpture garden where there is a place where you can eat and have a very convivial meal it is very much an enlivening asset. If it's something you could only press your nose to the glass and see other people eating and having refreshments but because you don't have a federal ID you can't do that is not so enlivening really. I think that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you. Mr. May, did you have something? COMMISSIONER MAY: I just have general comments. I've obviously been very close to the process and development of the memorial. I just want to emphasize for the benefit of the Commission how difficult the design challenge is working on this particular site. It is just a hugely complicated thing. It's not a well-defined space. It has all these roads running through it. It is so wide open and trying to make some definition of it I think is just such a huge challenge. I appreciate all the work that has gone into designing the memorial to address things both on the large scale and on the small scale as well. I would also say that since we saw this last there has been, I think, a substantial change that has resulted from a series of smaller changes. The loss of one column, the turning of the two tapestry panels, and so on. I don't know whether that necessarily comes through in the presentation but I think the net effect is that the memorial design and the features of it I think fit much more comfortably and address the design guidelines, I think, for the most part very effectively. I also would agree that the really big move, the dazzling aspect of this, is the development of the tapestry. I was fairly concerned, I think, from the very beginning about how effective that would be and how much that could change the nature of this design or sort of prove the design. I think that what we've seen in the samples that are here, and the samples that we saw on site, prove that the tapestry is potentially a very, very exciting feature and demonstrates an artistry and appropriateness for what is being attempted here that I actually find quite surprising and delightful. I think that was the really big development since we were here last. The result is that there has been exceptional progress over the last several months. I do know there is more work that needs to be done. There is more work to be done from the Park Service's perspective because, as much as I love the tapestry, we want to make sure that it is maintainable and permanent in the long run. We go to great lengths to maintain our memorials. They have to withstand many different conditions. Some of them are surprising like earthquakes. Fortunately this, I don't think, is going to have issues if there is another earthquake. We have responsibility for maintaining everything more or less forever so we want to make sure it passes the forever test. We will continue to work with the design team to make sure that happens. With regard to the further development of the design, I think that's all happening and I'm confident that we will bet to a completion point that will be satisfactory for this Commission and for the other Commissions and for Section 106 consulting parties and so on. Thanks. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Other discussion, Mr. Hart? COMMISSIONER HART: I also was able to view the mock-ups of this tapestry last month and I was struck with the progression of the notion from a photographic representation to something that is a lot more sculptural and true art work in its own. That being said, from the very beginning I have expressed a concern about putting anything of this scale in the street right-of-way. There are four of these enormous columns in the Maryland Avenue right- of-way that I think begin to obstruct that. It narrows the right-of-way from 160 feet of clear view to 90 feet. I find that disturbing much in the way that Commissioner Tregoning described in making the street less monumental. I do appreciate the fact that the view shed is being framed by trees that continue the allee along the Maryland Avenue axis opening up towards the Capitol. I think the addition and emphasis of a garden treatment of the plaza is going to be a welcome addition. I'm still looking, though, for the connection to Eisenhower. I'm not seeing the celebration of the man and his contribution in a depiction of a rural landscape which is really very much the central theme on the tapestry. The last point is that I see that the support building is being moved out of the central plaza and I applaud that. As a matter of fact, I would take it off the table entirely if it was in my power. I don't think it's appropriate or a positive addition to this design concept. If GSA were willing to help accommodate some of those functions, I think that would be much appreciated. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: With the approval of the Chairman, the Department of Education representatives that are here today, would they be allowed to share their perspectives? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: I don't see why not. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I think the partnership, the communication, the collaboration between the Eisenhower Commission and their neighbors would be relevant. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Is there anyone here from DOE who would -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Ms. Weiss and Mr. McGrath. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Not here today? Okay. MR. FEIL: My name is Dan Feil. I'm the executive architect with the Eisenhower Memorial Commission. Mr. Gehry and the Commission have been meeting with Joanne Weiss, the Chief of Staff, and Secretary Duncan at 2:00 if we have completed and, if not, a few minutes later, here in your training room. We are talking with them. I think we are getting to a better place. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Did a group recently go from the NCMAC to meet with the Education folks? I chatted with Mr. McGrath earlier in the week. He's the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Was there a separate meeting? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Ms. Weiss went down and viewed the same mock-ups that you did. She also went inside and viewed them from inside the building out as I believe you folks did. My Commission met with her deputy Eric Waldo about a week ago with John McGrath. That is when we all agreed that the two of them plus Joanne would be coming to see the model. They have not seen the model before. They've seen the mock-ups. As I said, I think we're moving in a good direction. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: In their absence, if I might be permitted, I could share Mr. McGrath's conversation with me of Tuesday of this week. They continue to be concerned about the relationship between the building and the memorial. Promenade has some concerns; the tapestry, the site lines of view from outside the building, the lighting into the building. He used the term shrouding the building. Again, his terminology. He did acknowledge that some of the issues had been mitigated. He talked about the shortened span of the tapestry. The images that they have now seen in the mock-ups are more translucent than they originally had been led to believe. The reorientation of the smaller tapestries was also notable. It was very helpful for them to see it as it was for the Commissioners to make the site visit and look at the mock- ups. The distance between the tapestry and the building, the height, they became no more comfortable. This is what my note says. Our conversation proceeded. He described the rank and file in the Education Building as not being crazy about the columns. However, their leadership -- the message that they have taken away is that this is inevitable. You need to get on board. They seem to believe that the Commissioners on both the NCMAC and NCPC are pleased with the design. They were pleased with things like the support for visitors. They were led to believe that their building and their plaza was not remarkable and part of the function of the tapestry was to hide "an ugly building." Obviously that's in the eye of the beholder. Sometimes clear and clean and simple and functional is also attractive. They were respectful of the intent to design the plaza as a theater. One of the things that was important to them was respect. While they acknowledge that the intent of the building, they are also a cabinet agency and they have a very important mission. That was the gist of his comments to me. The specific ones that I have I echo -- MR. FEIL: Could I address some of those comments? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Certainly. MR. FEIL: We met with Mr. McGrath on previous occasions and he told us that somewhere between -- less than 20 people sent him emails regarding their comments on the tapestry and how they felt about the project. There are a 1,000 people in the building. It didn't seem in anyway conclusive that the 20 emails were representative of every one. We asked where it all comes from and it's all anecdotal so I'll offer my anecdote. My Commission receives five or six emails on our website from people who are at the Department of Ed and some of them were rather vocal and unkind and unpleasantly worded. One after the tapestry went up, the very next morning this same woman wrote us another email and apologized and said, "I'm very sorry I spoke the way I did. My language was off. The tone was wrong and it's going to be beautiful. Thank you." When we were up on the floor looking out on the tapestry, a worker right in front of the glass said, "I want to meet the architect. I just think it's great. I can see it. It's a tree. I can see through it." There are anecdotes on both sides. We've only been told by Mr. Waldo or by Ms. Weiss that they felt this was inevitable. It seems to be now moving in the direction of it is acceptable to us now and we would like to develop the promenade so that we can really get something out of this more than even the space itself. We want to activate it. That is why I asked her to come and see the model and she agreed because I think to understand it, as Frank said before, you need to get up and walk around it and look at it. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Certainly. MR. FEIL: We are thrilled that she's coming and we are very optimistic that we will wind up in a better place. Hopefully if they feel that way the Department would be able to commit to you formally what their position is rather than this anecdotal. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I asked them about that because their formal position was in February of this year multiple concerns per the memo of Mr. Duncan. MR. FEIL: Correct. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I asked Mr. McGrath specifically about that subsequent to your meetings and I perhaps had laid out the agenda for your meeting this afternoon if they are consistent with the concerns that were raised. I asked him specifically, "Will there be a follow-on memo with your latest and newest position?" He could not obviously on behalf of the Secretary make that commitment but it's being considered. Appreciate your response on the anecdotal information. MR. FEIL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Again, my source is Mr. McGrath of 48 hours ago. One of the things that he was concerned about somehow or another he's gotten the impression on the imaging that is being selected, or proposed and considered at this time for the tapestry, with this thing being 20 feet above the ground. What it does because of the broad width of the most dense and, therefore, most opaque band of the earthwork is the folks on the second and third floor their view out of the building and light into the building is blocked. One of the suggestions is just to shift the camera angle up a couple of inches so that band is just a little bit narrower. Going back to the issue of the tapestry, I think it's incredible. I'm surprised it hasn't been patented already it is so innovative. Like some fellow Commissioners, again, from the operation and maintenance and life cycle perspective, the ability of those thousands and thousands -- millions of welds and their ability to withstand buffeting of winds. I believe there is some weathering testing underway so I hope that would make sure that those welds short of sealing them. Then also cleaning windblown debris, airborne seeds, bird nests, if it would be difficult if you have to hose this thing down either from a crane or some built- in spray jets every night that would be unfortunate. I think the last point I would like to cover is just the design principles. I acknowledge that we have seen progress from February to today. In the seven design principles there was only compliance for this particular design concept 3 that in February met the least amount of those design principles, only two of seven. There has been progress to date. The two that were met, enhancing the nature of the this site and, No. 2, incorporating green space, have been sustained so that's a good thing. There was, as we say in North Carolina where I'm from, no backsliding which is good. There is at least partial compliance with No. 3 on the uniformed memorial site. There is at least partial compliance on shaping the site, No. 4. Little bit of hesitancy still about complimenting the Department of Education headquarters. Hopefully subsequent to your meeting we'll have good news there. Still have major concerns about 5 and 6 respecting complimenting architecture of the surrounding precinct and the site lines that have been touched on by the other Commissioners. I applaud you for the efforts headed in the right direction. Some of the concerns remain about scope, scale, view sheds both down Capitol and reciprocal. We still continue to have those. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much. Mr. McGill. COMMISSIONER McGILL: Thank you. First of all, in response to Ms. Tregoning, in the summer of 2001 we put tables and chairs outside the Education Building so that passers by could partake of the food and drink in the cafeteria and enjoy the plaza, if it's possible to enjoy that plaza. After 9/11 those tables and chairs were removed. We certainly share your concern about the importance and need for making our buildings more open and accessible and making people -- giving people access to our food services so that is very important. Second, I would just like to make a few comments on the design. I am very impressed with the changes and modifications that have been made. I am especially impressed with this idea of the outdoor room and now it's more so of an outdoor room because of the rotating of the end panels. It seems to me that the outdoor room might be the only way to relate to some of these designer principles. I emphasize with the architect having to try to respect the L'Enfant plan when almost all the buildings on Maryland Avenue don't respect the L'Enfant plan. They are situated so that they are parallel to Independence Avenue and they are rectangles, not multi shaped shapes like in the federal triangle. As a result you get this zig zag gap toothed facade along Maryland Avenue that is a constant source of dismay to me from design principles for the sense of creating a street wall. Secondly, respecting the architecture of the existing buildings surrounding the site is very difficult because the architecture of the existing building surrounding the site varies so dramatically. It seems to me that the outdoor room is one of the few ways those design principles can be complied with. Although this is on a much smaller scale, I can think of an example where this has worked in New Harmony, Indiana which is an historic community built in the 1810s, 1920s on the banks of the Wabash River, I believe. The village was an utopian community founded by German separatists. It's mainly wood vernacular architecture. In the middle of this restored preserved historic site is a roofless church designed by Philip Johnson with four walls and no roof, four low walls and landscaping. It does a very effective job of fitting into the site yet providing a different contrast to what is there right now. I'm also pleased that the cart way has been shifted from paving the grass. I think that is more respectful of the memorial itself. It integrates the memorial together better while still keeping the site lines intact. I like the subject matter of the tapestry. Eisenhower was a man of the west. He lived beyond the 100th meridian in a fairly severe environment and he had the optimism and openness of people of the west. He also worked to integrate the east and the west with the interstate highway system. I think this is a very appropriate memorial as designed and I'm impressed with the way they modified it to comply with these principles. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you. Any last words? Yes, please. COMMISSIONER DENIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank all of those who have worked in this noble endeavor. Seeing all of the Ike buttons brings back many fond memories. I have one of those in my office prominently displayed. It did occur to me when you mentioned the time involved that it exceeds the length of America's involvement in World War II and almost combined with Eisenhower's eight years as president. I would like to ask -- I'm very intrigued by the design and I think it's really inspiring but there are a few aspects I would like to inquire about. No. 1, I personally would be satisfied with just a statute of Eisenhower with different notations on the base noting the positions that he held; President and general, presidency of Columbia University and head of NATO, and so on. I was just wondering if any thought was given to that and specifically Columbia University and NATO. Is there any reference to that or symbolism involved in any of the items displayed here? MR. GEHRY: Well, as I stated, we're working with the historians and the experts. I've read everything I could find about him. He lived in Abilene so the barefoot boy. We thought that was a moment, I think, we talked about it, David Eisenhower burst into tears actually as I recall. I think we don't want to dismiss all those other things. A statue of Eisenhower may just be obvious at this point. I don't know. We are looking into it. The hardest thing is to find a sculptor. All the great ones are sort of gone. We are getting help from a contemporary artist, Charlie Ray. When I asked him if he would do it, he said no, he's saving himself for MacArthur. That was his quick response to get himself out of it. He said, "I'll show you how to do it." So we are working on that. I don't rule out a statue of Eisenhower. We've got only a few weeks to decide this so we are pushing forward. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Miller. COMMISSIONER MILLER: I just wanted to associate myself with the remarks of Ms. Tregoning and others about the tapestry. I, too, was on site and it is beautiful. But I also associate myself with her other remarks about the columns in particular. I think when I first saw them here I called them the biggest, baddest bollards around. They are colossal, gargantuan things. I think the mock-up had a steel -- had some kind of a steel frame which obviously doesn't compliment the architecture of the surrounding buildings but I think it worked better in terms of it can be thinner. It can perform the function that you need these things to perform I would think. They are just so big. MR. FEIL: Just to a point of clarification on the frame. The frame is there simply for the mock-up. There will be no frame like that on the tapestry itself. The tapestry would be COMMISSIONER MILLER: I realize that. I was trying to say I kind of like it better than the 10 huge columns. From the perspective I have right here it's not so bad but most people are going to have -- a lot of people are going to have the columns right there looking at them and there are just so many and so big. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Last comments, please. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Just very quickly. I just wanted to point out that the -- it's both the dimension of the columns diameter, but it's also height and I really would like to see -- the other two initial proposals were at 50 and 65 feet for the initial design so 80 feet what it does to the right-of-way. I will also say I get that Independence Avenue is uneven but I'm not wild about the columns intruding into the Independence Avenue right-of-way so it's a visible intrusion is what I object to. I realize that Mr. Gehry talked about the Lincoln Memorial and the Greek temple idea and the rigorous geometry of that. For what it's worth, I would be perfectly happy to see that relaxed and to be able to move things around a little bit, move those side tapestries so that you didn't have the rigorous geometry but you also didn't have things intruding. If you got more space between the columns you could have more of that Monumental Boulevard and not so much intrusion when you look down the street. What you see is not the beautiful tapestry. You see this massive out- of-scale column. One last thing. I love the idea of the outdoor room except this is not an outdoor room. This is like an outdoor airport. I would love to have these beautiful panels create some intimacy and there are so many different parts of the life of Eisenhower. Mr. Gehry spoke about the Roosevelt Memorial where maybe it's too many series of vignettes but everyone of those spaces is intimate and different. You feel like you know the man and you know the woman and you know the life in a way that I'm just not getting from this memorial and it really has to do with scale and intimacy and what you experience of the ground. I think the changes have been in the right direction. I would like to see more of them. I would like to see the intimate spaces for people that you'll be creating on the ground of this memorial. MR. FEIL: Well, regarding the height, the 50-foot and 65-foot columns were proposed for two other alternatives and they were enclosing different sizes of area and volume. It's not necessarily reasonable to immediately say, "Well, you used 60 or 65 in there. Why can't you stick it over there?" It's very difficult for the client group, my Commission, to have our design team come forward to the different review bodies in Washington and get told somewhat disparate things. We have to work with that and we will. There are studies on column height that were done and we are trying to schedule meetings with NCPC staff to go over them to show how we arrived where we are. We'll be doing that before we come back to you. We hope to do that in the next two weeks. The intimacy, again, will be coming back with the ground plane and hopefully when you see where we are with the ground plane you will feel more comfortable with the scale issue. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Gehry, Mr. Webb, Mr. Feil, thank you very much. As we wrap up, I want to make just a couple points. One is a number of folks have comments about the progress that's been made. I think that's been the result of a lot of collaboration. The 106 process is working and the comments made today about columns and right-of-ways and such will continue in that forum. I'm sure there will be consensus. Second, at least speaking for myself, I've seen more information today on the ground planes and substantive details than I think I've seen before. Mr. Feil just mentioned that there is more information coming on that. If we could get that information so that we could look at it as quickly as possible, that would be helpful. Then last I would say just regarding some of these outstanding issues, I think it's important that the 106 process move along fairly expeditiously so that we can then jump immediately into the NEPA process and be ready for December. I think that's very important. With that, thank you very much for coming. It's been a very good session and I hope you've gotten some constructive comments back. We will have to take about a five-minute break right now because this model has to be moved because it has other obligations this afternoon. COMMISSIONER MAY: Mr. Chairman, just a second. I just want to remind folks who have the interest in commenting on the design of environmental assessment. The comment period is happening right now so you can go to our website and find a place to comment. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Very good. COMMISSIONER MAY: And the deadline for that, I think, is the 19th. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. May. Let's take about a five-minute break. If we could move this model as quickly as possible, that would be very helpful. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: If we could resume proceedings. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: I would like to call the meeting back to order. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: The next item on the agenda is Item No. 6A. It's the First Stage Planned Unit Development and Related Map Amendment for the Southwest Waterfront Project. We have Mr. Hart here to kick off the discussion. Mr. Hart, welcome. MR. HART: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. Before you today is a First Stage Planned Unit Development and Related Map Amendment for the Southwest Waterfront in Southwest Washington, D.C. This project is an important one because of the location of the Southwest Waterfront and the connection that we want to create along the 10th Street Corridor from the mall to the Southwest Waterfront as part of the Monumental Core Framework Plan and as part of the Southwest Ecodistrict process that is currently ongoing. Because of this importance, staff has consulted with the developer with the project and have really focused on a couple of issues. Those of views from the Banneker Overlook and connections to and from the Waterfront from the Banneker Overlook. Those consultations have progressed well and I'll be presenting the results of that in this presentation. Just to kind of orient everyone, the Southwest Waterfront is here. The PUD is outlined in yellow in the center of the slide. The 10th Street corridor is highlighted here and connects to the Southwest Waterfront at Banneker Park and the overlook which is, again, a prominent location. I also wanted to point out a couple of pieces, a couple of other elements on the map. There are several National Park Service properties are in the area including Banneker Park, the Maine Lobsterman Park. I wanted to note that the Main Lobsterman Park you may notice it's actually this little dot that's here. It's surrounded by the PUD but it's not included in the PUD. We also have the Titanic Memorial. I also wanted to note that the Maine Avenue Fish Market is not included in the PUD itself but wanted to know where it was in the drawing. Previous Commission action. The Commission acted on a street closure for Water Street which is actually located -- this is the yellow line that's here. It's located within the boundary of the PUD that is before you. At that time using the Southwest Waterfront -- sorry. Excuse me, the Southwest Ecodistrict discussions that have been going on the two main points that the Commission recommended was to improve views and strengthen the connections, again, strengthening the connections from Banneker down to the Waterfront itself. Staff has actually been working with the applicant, as I said earlier, to work on those two aspects. Now, the First Stage PUD, this is the illustrative plan for the project. This image is rotated slightly. 10th Street is located here to the left of the slide, as well as the Banneker Park Overlook. The north in this case is actually kind of diagonal on the side. This is north to the left. First, these PUD really look at building massing. They are really illustrative in nature. They look at building massing. They look at the types of uses that are being proposed, as well as some of the other elements that would go on with this particular project. There will be a Second Stage PUD that the developer will submit for the project as well. I wanted to note that the project itself is, as I said, a First Stage PUD. There is also a zoning change that is being proposed as well. The zoning is to allow the development to be under C-3-C and R-5-B. These would allow heights of 130 feet and 60 feet to the -- 130 feet along Maine Avenue so these buildings and then lower buildings down here. The Second Stage PUD -- yes. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: I'm not sure if we've asked this question before but noting the proximity of the buildings to the Waterfront, what consideration has been given to climate change and presumed sea level rise over time? MR. HART: The developer is -- actually, the representatives are here and I think they can talk about that in a little more detail later. This is a development that they have looked at sustainability as part of that. They are actually looking for LEED Gold for the project. I believe it's not on the floodplain so there. They can describe the project in more detail and give you that information that you are looking for. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: There are quite a number of tidal and coastal communities who are looking at long-range plans on buildings very close to tidal waters. This is the first, second, and third phases. Actually, this is a phased development. They are looking at these phases coming forward in the future. The Second Stage PUD will look at the project in more detail and give greater detail on architecture, building architecture, the exact mix of uses, as well as other site elements. Just to note, if you didn't see the Maine Lobsterman Park, that's located here. The development massing and summary, they are looking at a site area of a little less than a million square feet. Building area is 3.165 million gross square feet. That would lead to an FAR of 3.19. There are 2,100 to 2,600 parking spaces all below ground in the development as well as bicycle parking and bicycle storage for between 1,500 and 2,200 bicycles. The building heights again between 57 and 130 feet. We would like to note that along Maine Avenue, Maine Avenue has a 120-foot right-of-way and this would allow under the Height Act buildings to the 130-foot height. The proposed open space plan, I'm showing this because the developer has proposed a wharf, the Wharf. That is the main organizing factor for the development. It helps to link all of the streets as well as open spaces to one main element. If you'll note, the streets as they come into the development the streets are actually carried through and connect to the 9th Street, 7th Street, and then M Street coming along here. They actually either end in a plaza or a park at each of these locations so it's really bringing the urban fabric into the development itself. The developer has submitted some sketches along with the plan. These are just some images of what their ideas are for the development looking at the street view along Maine Avenue, the rooftop view here looking towards the west, and then two park views here, one looking towards East Potomac Park and another looking at the Arena Stage. Proposed transportation plans. We have the streetcar circulation plan as well as the bicycle amenities plan. These were submitted by the developer. For the streetcar circulation plan there are two streetcar lines that will be used to circulate into and around the development. The developer has not included overhead streetcar wires as part of the images that they supply to us. Future elements or future details will be worked out through the Second Stage PUD and be submitted to us through a Second Stage PUD process. For the bicycle amenities plan the developer is showing that there are connections to the bike trails as well as other bicycle facilities like Capitol Share bike stations and then the propensity of the site for bicycles into and down to the Wharf. Analysis. We were really looking at understanding that there are current planning processes that are going on with the Southwest Ecodistrict process. That was part of the Monumental Core Framework Plan. The main issues that were really discussed during the plan were that of views and also understanding the physical connection to and from Banneker. In addition, because of the location of NPS properties there needs to be further NPS coordination as well. The views. Here are two images that are showing a plan that we saw -- that staff saw back in November of 2010 and what the current plan is showing. In 2010 the -- this is the 10th Street Overlook again. This would be the main connection down to -- physical connection down to the Waterfront. It was showing a 50- to 75-foot kind of view shed down there. The issue that we were trying to deal with was trying to widen that to allow more views -- greater view to the water. The developer has actually rotated buildings and redesigned buildings to allow for wider view shed. What we have now is 100-foot wide space. This is actually called the Market Square Plaza. This is the image that the developer has submitted to us. The development is shown here in the left part of the slide. Market Square Plaza is here with a one-story building. Also shown here is the Maine Avenue 5th Market. It's not part of the development but they were just showing what that might look like. We have the views looking from the -- this is actually the access along 10th Street. Again, looking at the 2010 plan and the current plan, this building that was here is actually sitting on, and all the buildings are really sitting on a two- to five-story base. In this case this building had two residential towers that came from that base and those towers blocked the view along the 10th Street access. In this instance we see that there is an 80 foot wide view corridor now because of the redesign of these -- actually reorientation of these buildings along that access. I would note that this is a section actually through that building that you just saw. Again, a five-floor base for the building the height of which would be here. This image to the left of the drawing, this section actually shows to the left the Banneker Overlook. We note that this is actually higher. The line is higher than where the overlook is. The views out from this side would actually be really from an elevated stance and the Monumental Core Framework Plan had at the end of the 10th Street terminus a plan for a memorial or museum at that location. From that there would be a view but not from the actual 10th Street overlook. This is just showing images that the developer supplied regarding sections through the Wharf and through Maine Avenue and they did not include the streetcar lines. This is just showing the connection, physical connection as part of the land development agreement between the city -- excuse me, the District and the developer. They are required to develop a connection between the overlook and the development itself. NCPC and NPS and the developer will be beginning a process to design this. This is just an idea of what that might look like. That process will begin to design this connection in the beginning part of 2012. National Park Service Coordination. Again, because of the proximity of a number of National Park Service properties there needs to be further coordination between the developer and the National Park Service to make sure that they are maintaining access and making access to these sites. With that, the Executive Director recommends that the Commission comment favorably on the Southwest Waterfront First Stage Planned Unit Development which identifies building massing, land uses, open space development, waterfront development and improvement, as well as a related map amendment to allow it to be developed under the C-3-C, W-1, and R-5-B zoning district. Note that since the Water Street closure was approved by the Commission in 2010 the District of Columbia and the developer have been working with NCPC staff on strengthening physical and visual connections to the overlook with the developer committing to increasing the width of the Market Square to 100 feet proposing an 80-foot-wide opening between the residential towers and constructing a pedestrian connection from Banneker Overlook to Maine Avenue. Just note that overhead wires for the future streetcar lines are not being proposed along this portion of Maine Avenue or along the Wharf and encourages the developer to meet with the National Park Service regarding strengthening connections to all the National Park Service properties that are nearby this project. With that I conclude my presentation. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Hart. Questions or comments? Mr. McGill and Mr. Hart. COMMISSIONER McGILL: Couple of questions. One, I thought from pass presentations that the future of the Banneker Overlook site was up in the air, that the city would like to maybe build a garage underneath it. The Commission has talked about putting a museum on top of it. You are working from the assumption that it's a grassy knoll with two stairways leading down to the ground and then using that as a judgement for protecting view sheds and so on. What is the status of the future of Banneker Overlook? MR. HART: Well, I think there's been quite a bit of discussion. I think there needs to be quite a bit of more discussion about what the future is. I think for right now we're looking at it as it currently is and that a connection would be really some sort of stair that goes down to the waterfront. As part of the Southwest Ecodistrict process they are looking at what happens with that connection and that terminus as well. I think there is kind of more planning that needs to go on before we get to this is what's going to happen and this is the time to go for it. COMMISSIONER McGILL: So you are asking the developer to change their plan. COMMISSIONER MAY: Can I speak to this because maybe I can enlighten on this subject a little bit. I think when the developer started out they were looking at the framework plan and other resources to try to anticipate what would happen in the future in Banneker and planning for the future. I think as a result there were certain assumptions about the density of what would happen there and I think, frankly, the assumption about density overestimated what the density would be. Park Service, which controls the site completely, anticipates it would eventually be used for a museum or a memorial site or some combination thereof and it may include a parking garage for buses or whatever purpose. We did not anticipate that the building would be built out to the full FAR of office type development and I think that is kind of what was pictured initially. COMMISSIONER McGILL: The building down below? MR. HART: No, no, no. That Banneker would be built out to just take the maximum footprint and extrude it up to the maximum height and then you have very narrowly defined view corridors. We didn't see that happening in the future at any point. We always thought that if it was going to be a significant buildout with a museum that it would still be an object and a landscape as opposed to a downtown office building kind of setting. There is still going to be, we think, in the future some outdoor amenity associated with that overlook site whether it's associated with a memorial, a museum, or even if it is associated with another development there is going to be some place there and there is going to need to be a connection to it. Now, how do you design based on that? I mean, it's not enough to form things, I think, too specifically the way they have tried to adapt the design to the Arena Stage and shape the plaza that is opposite the Arena Stage. Here it's a lot more speculative but I think that they have stepped up and tried to pick what worthy and important view corridors and put some focus on those so that there are these visual connections from Banneker Overlook to East Potomac Park and the water beyond. It's been a difficult balance but I think they moved in the right direction. Plus, we don't know when anything is going to happen there. It could be 20 or 30 years in the future so it doesn't make a lot of sense to just ignore it. COMMISSIONER McGILL: Okay. So in carrying this a little further, marching down the development you've got other view sheds that are potentially valuable and important and are preceding this development. You've got the Arena Stage with this spectacular new addition and balconies overlooking the water. Then you've got all those thousands of condominium units in the Southwest redevelopment area. Now, I thought I heard somewhere there were going to be medium-rise buildings built on piers sticking out into the water that would block the views of most of those residences in the Southwest redevelopment area. I'm just curious has the staff looked at other view sheds worthy of being protected or respected? COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Can I jump in? I mean, I have a harsh answer, Mike, but I won't use that answer. The developer and the architects have been very thoughtful, I think, about designing taller, narrower buildings. The things that we really want to protect as a Commission is more the public spaces and the public views and the public rights of way. We have a termination at the end of every street that now can come down to the waterfront out a pier, into a plaza with views of the water. Basically this land, you know, there is not a property right that private property holders have to be able to look at views on the site. I think the team did a great job accommodating Arena Stage but Arena Stage actually could have been on the water and that was one suggestion. There wouldn't be an issue about protecting views of the water. In deciding to be in a different location you don't get to build your property somewhere else and get the views you didn't buy. That's maybe a little harsher than I meant to be but, yes. But the public spaces is what we're kind of concerned about as a Commission. I think they've done a really great job protecting that. I think the point that Peter made which is it is speculative, although I think we all agree that because of the Southwest Waterfront Development, you know, we tried to shop that Banneker site around to, you know let me put it that way. We offered it as a potential commemoration site, maybe an alternative to the mall on many occasions and it wasn't appealing. I think that the very fact that the Southwest Waterfront Development is really going to rehabilitate this corridor and make it much more likely that there will be a commemorative site there. What we have asked the developer to do is to provide a meaningful connection from Banneker to the Southwest Waterfront so that people aren't taking a goat path down that hill and poor tourist who get to the end of what looks like a boulevard are stunned and appalled that it's just a waste land. That may not be the ultimate permanent connection but it might last for decades as Peter suggested. In the meantime we're trying to figure out other ways in which we can look at parking, look at other things that would accommodate the needs of the Park Service and the city and, yet, allow these other important uses to be there. We don't know what the future building or buildings or space use will be there but the fact that there are two very prominent view corridors preserved suggest that any talented architect could work with that in an orientation of a new building or moment or memorial and do very well. COMMISSIONER MAY: Can I just say that there are some issues with views from certain private properties. I don't think they are specific to the development that is on the pier itself but by no means do they obstruct the views of most of the homeowners in that area. I mean, just look at it on the plan. You can see it does not affect the vast majority of the condominiums and the townhomes in that area. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Hart. COMMISSIONER HART: A question on the Wharf area. I believe from what I'm seeing that it's a public right-of-way for vehicles and pedestrians but is it really a dedicated street or is it still a private development? MR. HART: Will it be given to the District at any point? COMMISSIONER HART: Right. MR. HART: It's my understanding that it will be a private street but it will be a public right-of-way so if you want to bike on it you can use it. COMMISSIONER HART: I like the fact that we are allowing people to get right up against the water and have that opportunity to interact. I appreciate the fact that the design is advanced. It's taken into account a lot of the sensitivities that were voiced at the Commission the last time we looked at this and I have no hesitation in supporting this. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: A couple comments. One, I'll start with a compliment. It looks like per an article in the Examiner that there was recently an award to the Car Hospitality and Intercontinental Hotel groups for a 260-room hotel as part of this $2 billion redevelopment so congratulations on that. It's nice to go with a local firm. Is this the hotel that according to the layout is in Parcel 5 that is indicated as No. 1, kind of the square structure? MR. STEENHOEK: The Car Hotel is on Parcel 3. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Three. Let me get down to it. MR. STEENHOEK: Sorry. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I notice you have a couple there. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Use the microphone, please. Note your name for the record, please. MR. STEENHOEK: Matthew Steenhoek with P.N. Hoffman. The Car Hotel is in Parcel 3. It's a luxury hotel product. In Parcel 5 is two hotels that are controlled by the JBG Company as a limited service and extended-stay hotel. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: And the other congratulations was green space, 56 percent by my calculation. Fifteen acres out of 26.6 so 56 percent green space which is highly commendable. On the view sheds from Banneker, both primary view sheds as well as reciprocal from East Potomac Park and the Washington Channel, good comments, I think. I applaud you on 30 to 50 feet that was given with the Market Square. I want to continue to press that if we could. Please, if you would, consider widening Theater Alley. If you would consider shaving off that residential tower on the structure adjacent to Theater Alley. For example, can you go to that slide that shows the north end of the development? Let me get my pointer here some place. That little red shape. Yes, right there. For example, if that was either shaved off and rotated along the north side, the L-shaped north extension, you could easily widen the view shed from the Banneker Overlook, particularly the elevated view shed, if you just shaved that off and relocated it to the north side. Then you wouldn't have to -- MR. STEENHOEK: You said -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Exactly. Just shave it off there and put it in the existing view shed. Take it from there to here and then you would have a view shed like this along Theater Alley, along the access of Theater Alley. Just put it right there as opposed to right there. Part of is it blocks clearly the view if you're in this northern residential space, condos or whatever this is, you don't have a view. The value and the price of property, the property value in real estate diminishes because it's blocked by this. But if it's rotated right here and then you have a view shed like so just for your consideration. Clearly there is progress. Joint planning. I think that was mentioned with the Southeast Ecodistrict planning folks. There is some language in here -- at this point the language encourages a developer to work with the Park Service on strengthening connections. I would defer to my Park Service Commissioner and colleague of that language is strong enough as opposed to requires the developer? COMMISSIONER MAY: I don't even know that it's necessary frankly. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Favorable transitions to the Park Service properties. COMMISSIONER MAY: I don't have an interest in strengthening it. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: You're happy the way it is? COMMISSIONER MAY: I don't even know that it's necessary. I think the dialogue has been constructive so far and the developer seems quite amenable to doing many of the things we would like to see done. MR. STEENHOEK: We also met with some of your colleagues just yesterday to talk about all these issues. COMMISSIONER MAY: Exactly. I don't know exactly what's happening because of my involvement in the PUD case but I know that it is happening so I'm confident there. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Ms. Tregoning. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I'll just say, you know, this is a great project, important to the city, and I very much appreciate how much the design team and the developer have worked with the Commission and the various members of the Commission to accommodate the concerns that have been raised. I hope that all of you will join me if I were to move the EDR. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Ms. Young. Oh, we do have a public comment. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Certainly. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Steenhoek. We have one speaker, Mr. Steenhoek. If you want to take three minutes, you have three minutes. MR. STEENHOEK: I'm okay, I believe. Thank you, Commission, for your time. Thank you for your questions. We have enjoyed working with the staff of the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine Arts, Office of Planning, National Parks, the whole group. I look forward to contributing to that conversation going forward and I think our plan has been greatly enriched by their contributions over the last 2007 or so. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Terrific. Thank you very much. MR. STEENHOEK: Thank you again. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Indeed. There is a motion on the table and it has been moved to approve the EDR. Is there further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor say aye. ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no. The ayes have it. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 5B is an information presentation Beyond Granite: Forms of Remembrance and Celebration Competition. Ms. Kempf. MS. KEMPF: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission. Today I plan to update you on a project in partnership with GSA Office of Planning and Design Quality. It includes a design competition and temporary installation in the Federal Triangle. We would like to thank Mina Wright, Mike McGill, and others at GSA for their support. Today we welcome Christine Ewing, the regional fine arts officer at GSA and CR. She will be showing the presentation with me. Although Washington may be most well known for its permanent memorials, this project is a pilot designed to explore commemorative forms through temporary display. The permanent memorial is a powerful art form and appropriately in Washington it comes with boundaries regarding content and a specific process for site and design. There are a number of way including permanent display for the public to celebrate and reflect on contemporary issues of importance to them. As we will explore in the presentation, temporary display may offer opportunity where the permanent by design does not. Together they can both enrich Washington's public realm and response to public history and memory through art. Through competition our goal is to support a broad public dialogue about diverse forms of remembrance and celebration to generate innovative submissions that would enrich Washington's cultural and commemorative landscapes and diversify the palette of materials that we commonly associate with memoralization. Additional goals include to activate a public space that is perhaps overlooked today and to help the public and sponsors visualize in a very dynamic way design opportunities on a site in the Federal Triangle and office of the National Mall. So how did we get here? The framework plan identifies sites in areas that can support activities such as celebration, commemoration, and other cultural uses. We really see this current competition at the intersection of place making and those vital activities. The plan called for a range of opportunities including temporary display as a way of meeting those needs and enlivening the public realm. Our commemoration study found that cities in the U.S. and abroad have successfully developed projects that support temporary display in addition to permanent memorialization as a means of celebrating a community's history, important people, and other events. We'll see some examples of those projects in the presentation today. In 2010 NCPC co-sponsored several events that began to specifically look at opportunities for temporary display in our Nation's Capital. Earlier this year at its retreat Commissioners supported developing a pilot project in Washington of temporary installations. Since the retreat NCPC staff has been working with GSA to develop a project plan and just in terms of the broad strokes NCPC supporting is doing planning support, whereas GSA will administer the project over the next several years. So we are here to brief you today on our progress, get your feedback on our approach and our goals. Before digging in to the specifics of the project plan, we are proposing temporary display. What exactly does that mean? We have a long tradition in the United States of using temporary exhibits in the field of architecture, urban planning, design, and art as a way of sparking innovative ideas and exploring new concepts. Whether experience is an larger- than-life and awe-inspiring gesture or something more intimate and built to a personal scale, the temporary can be transformative. The Ghost Bike, for example, is a simple roadside memorial in a place where a cyclist has been killed, but it's also becoming a universal symbol today of passing motorists to share the road. Tribute and Light is perhaps one of our most famous and well-recognized memorials today and it's temporary in the sense that it is event based. We have taken important strides in building a permanent memorial and museum in remembrance of September 11, but in the meantime this memorial was in place within months and provided immediately a stunning symbol of remembrance. Today GSA and NCPC are developing a competition that more formally explores this tradition of using a temporary exhibit as a medium that can respond to ideas about remembrance and celebration which is such an important concept in our Nation's Capital. As I have already mentioned, NCPC and its partners have met this desire on the site level with the Memorials and Museums Master Plan and the Monumental Core Framework Plan. With this current partnership with GSA we explore form in addition to site. We took an important step in defining what a competition might look like at the 2010 Beyond Granite Forum where we heard from experts in the U.S. and abroad about specific projects and programs that have worked in their communities. From the creator of Tribute and Light, for example, we sort of gained a technical understanding of what it actually meant to put together a project like this and pay for it in such a short amount of time, six months. We also heard from the Director of London's Fourth Plinth, a program in one of London's most prominent monumental and symbolic settings. The Plinth provides for temporary display on a 106 year old plinth that until recently sat empty because no one could agree on what memorial should belong there and so they just basically didn't put anything there. Here are some examples of pieces that have been on display there for about a year or so. On the upper left is Ship in a Bottle which commemorates specifically the Battle of Trafalgar, although in a bit of an unusual way. This project really enables us to learn about a process that they used in London to select and pay for these works. According to Ms. Simons, who is the director through contrast, these works have really embellished the permanent settings at Trafalgar Square. For us one of the most inspirational aspects of this project is the level of outreach that they have incorporated into this project. There is a public vote at the semi finalist stage so they have six finalists and the public actually gets to weigh in and say what pieces they would like to see. Also there is a parallel student competition so you have people of all ages weighing in on content which I think is pretty inspirational and we would like to incorporate at least a level of this type of outreach in our project plan. With that I would like to turn it over to Christine Ewing to go over the project plan. MS. EWING: Thank you, Lucy. Good afternoon. We took some of the key lessons from the forum and the workshop in developing a project plan. One of the first steps we took was understanding the opportunities associated with temporary display. In addition to the examples we've already shown, the following slides include project types we have explored for the competition. Recently Washington, D.C. added a road tattoo to its commemorative landscape that will vanish over time. Created by the sons of daughters of soldiers serving in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the participants helps to create a work of art that is both a commemorative work and an experience. Fully integrated into the cityscape, the piece blurs the line between sacred and public space. This aerial piece was installed for a month to commemorate the Biennial of the Americas. It incorporates fabrics that move with the wind and change color with the time of day. Here we have the architectural pavilion in Millennium Park which was installed for a five-month period in celebration of the Burnham Plan Centennial. One of the most interesting aspects of this project is in the interior. It featured a film installation projected onto the fabric interior. The film reflects Chicago's transformation from 1909 to the present and included voices of people throughout the region sharing their visions of the future. This is an adaptable work so theoretically an architectural pavilion like this could become a place that houses a number of different types of perspectives through different multi-media applications. Finally, some have considered the National Memorial AIDS Quilt as both an event and a memorial. Half a million people visited the quilt while on display on the Mall and over 20 years later many still remember it. What do all of these diverse projects have in common? Well, they are all event based, up for a limited period of time. With shortened display times also comes shorter production times. Because of that, there is an opportunity for more immediacy and responsiveness to whatever issue the work explores. Many works have innovative materials. Several explore the intersection of sacred and public space. The public may be invited to help create the work. Without the interpretive features like permanent signage, viewers have a different experience with the installation and the space. Finally, temporary display supports adaptable open spaces for current and future use. The space we propose for the display is the mid-block of 12th and Pennsylvania in Northwest. We selected this site because it is embraced by historic monumental federal buildings and located in the Federal Triangle across from the old Post Office. We see many opportunities to improve public engagement and activity in this space. Sometimes called the Hemicycle or the Aerial Rios Plaza, there are many reasons for selecting this site. It is under the jurisdiction of GSA and in the boundaries of the Federal Triangle Precinct Security Plan. The Memorials and Museums Master Plan identifies it as a future location for commemorative work so we are pleased to sponsor this project for the public to visualize the opportunities at such an interesting location off the National Mall. Let's walk through some of the key activities associated with each of these major steps starting with where we are at today in the pre-competition planning. We are working with a competition advisor called Land Air out of New York. Land Air managed the 9/11 memorial competition and they participated in a number of cultural and parks projects such as Battery Park Revitalization and we are very excited to work with an organization that brings such expertise to our project. As part of the development of the competition brief we asked the advisor to look at the project topologies that we have identified in this presentation and to make recommendations regarding the strengths and opportunities of each approach in terms of the site and in consideration of our goals. Going back to the project plan, in terms of the competition the framework for our partnership uses existing GSA programs that support both civic art and the development of the public ground in our Nation's Capital including its form, function, and interface with federal buildings. We are drawing upon our design excellence program to assist with the procurement process and the competition. We also have a strong art and architecture program where we contract with artists for public art across the nation. Our First Impressions Program recognizes the importance of the visitor's experience in our public spaces and plazas like the Hemicycle. In conclusion, we believe that there are so many interesting opportunities at this important site in Washington and we look forward to working with the National Capital Commission on this project because both of our agencies share a strong interest in exploring the intersection of place making, public engagement, artistic forms of remembrance and celebration in our Nation's Capital. We welcome your questions and thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much. This has been a very important initiative that we've been talking about for some time. Is the NEA involved in this at all? MS. KEMPF: No. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Questions or comments? Ms. Tregoning. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I think it's a great project and I strongly support it. I've said this to staff. My only small comment or concern is that it's in a bit of an out-of-the-way location. I think that the benefit of the demonstration that you are trying to make you may not get the -- have the same impact as if it was directly on Pennsylvania Avenue or somewhere else but I do applaud the effort. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Could we get copies of your materials so that we could perhaps on an agency level adapt and adopt a similar program in areas that would lend themselves to exhibiting? MS. KEMPF: Sure. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: This particular area it is very limited as far as putting something like a Fourth Plinth pedestal upon which to display because a lot of it is green. Two questions. Would it be paved so that crowds could gather around and observe the art work? MS. KEMPF: One of the things that we've asked the competition adviser to do is to prepare recommendations regarding the type of infrastructure that we might need to support whatever the installation will be. At this point we are trying to keep as open a mind as possible to the number of possibilities. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: The second question is this a primary entrance, access and egress, to this building that would need to be respected and preserved and not encroached on in any way? MS. EWING: I don't think so but we're working with the FM management and we'll make sure to find out. MS. KEMPF: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Also, do you make road trips? Would you come out to our agency and talk about this if we were to invite you? MS. KEMPF: We would love to. We'll bring the presentation out. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: All right. Thank you. MS. KEMPF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. McGill. COMMISSIONER McGILL: I think this is a really intriguing proposal. We at one point were looking at redoing this plaza in front of the Ellipse and moving the Benjamin Franklin statute there from the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue until we discovered the city owned the Benjamin Franklin statute. But we are going to kind of redo the plaza and incorporate security measures. It is an entrance for EPA. It's an access route for Wilson Plaza and it also has over on the left side of the area a Metro station, elevator bank for the Metro station but that simply means there will be hopefully more people going back and forth by whatever exhibits are proposed. It also, I think, would help further our efforts to make the federal triangle more porous and create more connections between them all and downtown by getting people to leave the Mall and look at these temporary installations. Finally, I think it helps -- Kirk Savage made a very eloquent case for this in his book. One thing that strikes me is that in reading about monuments and memorials there is a tension between meeting the needs of the immediate people impacted by whatever event is being commemorated and finding a timeless design. Maya Angelou did a fantastic job with that the Vietnam Memorial but I fear that the World War II Memorial is more responsive to the wishes and desires of the survivors than to necessarily be a timeless design. Having a series of temporary memorials along this line if we can create a momentum to do this on an ongoing basis would be one way of testing out designs for possible future memorials. I think that would be very effective and useful. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much. Terrific. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item 5C is the next to the last. It's an information presentation and it's on the Navy Installation Master Plan. It's an update. Mr. Dettman is back. MR. DETTMAN: Good afternoon. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, the Navy is here to provide you with a short brief on its efforts to update several installation master plans located throughout the region. You'll recall that the Commission has recently had some discussions related to DOD, some Navy projects regarding the lack of an updated master plan. What you'll see today is a product of some of the discussions that NCPC staff and DOD staff have been involved in, some of the very positive discussions in making in roads in terms of putting together a master plan structure that meets both the Navy's and NCPC staff's needs. I want to hand it over to Mr. Kevin Montgomery. He's with NAVFAC Washington to provide you a brief. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Montgomery, welcome back. Do you have any materials that we could follow along with? MR. MONTGOMERY: I did not make any handouts. Hello. My name is Kevin Montgomery. I'm here representing the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Washington. The purpose of the brief today is to inform you on our efforts to update installation master plans within the National Capital Region. We are looking to inform the Commission and solicit feedback on the Navy's efforts to update installation master plans within the NCR including the proposed frame work for the master plan's transportation management plans and NEPA documentation associated with those master plans. NAVFAC Washington is currently preparing installation master plans for six Department of Navy installations within the National Capital Region. Those installations are the Washington Navy Yard, Naval Support Facility Arlington, Naval Support Facility Naval Observatory, Naval Support Facility Carderock, the Naval Research Lab at Washington, and Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling. In extensive consultation with NCPC staff and including two DOD level meetings with staff and Commission members, NAVFAC Washington has identified the following path forward to prepare updated installation management plans for these six installations and meet the NEPA requirement associated with master plan review by the Commission. The IMPs will be composed of a short-term and long-term development plan. The short-term component of the master plans will be based off the Department of Defense's military construction budget process. Each DOD department and agency develops a Program Objective Memorandum, known as a POM. The POM covers a budget year and four out years. MILCON projects require Congressional approval and the money is obligated for up to five years. The short- term development plans will cover a five-year horizon of known development projects which aligns the Navy's five-year development and funding process for construction. The long-term component of the master plans will be comprised of a series of components including overlay maps consisting of transportation circulation, ways forward, ideas in terms of long-term additions to our open space in conservation areas. We will also look at our parking inventory, things such as our landscaping plan and our stormwater management plan. Components will provide Commission context for long-term installation planning. Each one of these master plan updates will have a NEPA component, an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, and the appropriate decision document will be prepared for each installation master plan. The EA or the EIS will provide a detailed analysis of the short-term development plan. The EA or the EIS will also analyze the cumulative impacts of the short and long-term development plans in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development around the installation. Emerging projects will continue to be analyzed under NEPA on a project-specific basis. The Navy will re-evaluate the status of each IMP at the conclusion of the short- term five-year planning horizon. For purposes of this brief we are going to use the Washington Navy Yard Master Plan to show data collection methods and analysis we plan to do for each installation master plan update. While mission focused, the Department of the Navy strides to develop spaces that enable a high quality of life within the urban setting of Washington, D.C. The Department of the Navy is unique as many of our installations have multiple tenants. NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command serves as the landlord to these tenants. This slide is showing the various naval commands at the Washington Navy Yard. The figure next to it also lays out percentage of land use for each area on the Navy Yard, the largest being administrative. I'll go into more detail in future slides. Anticipated growth at the Washington Navy Yard over the next five years is based on internal tenant growth and no new facilities. As you can see over the next five years, we only anticipate an additional 375 employees being added to the Navy Yard. No major military construction mostly as the result of renovation of existing space. There is some demolition associated with work being done at the Navy Yard over the next five years. There is no plans to increase parking at the Washington Navy Yard over the next five years. This slide is showing existing land use categories and how the Navy foresees the long-term land use being facilitated at the Navy Yard. We tried to incorporate a legion on this slide but it got too small to really gather what it was saying. What I can point out is that the blue area on the existing figure is administrative and the long-term blue is also administrative. The brown on the existing far right-hand corner is an example that shows parking and then our long-term outlook shows that potentially that is basically moved to administrative functions. We collected survey data that allows us to analyze commuting patterns and better understand where employees live. This particular slide is showing employees by zip code. It is showing the major Metro lines of transportation. It is also showing the major roadways coming in and out of the city. The different colors represent number of employees based on survey results. The white areas showing that zero employees as far as our survey is considered are commuting to the Washington Navy Yard. The light brownish color is one to 10 employees, the green 10 to 25 employees, then the darker brown areas are showing potentially 26 to 94 employees. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I'm sorry. Does that consider commuting modes? What was that? MR. MONTGOMERY: We conducted a survey and got results based on where people were commuting from. This doesn't address commuting modes. This slide is showing commuting habits of Washington Navy Yard employees. It's showing total commuters by distance traveled. We found that our largest number of commuters are coming from 10 to 20 miles away. It's also showing here that we have a large number of dedicated drivers coming in to the Navy Yard. When we synthesized the last two graphs we see that the 10 to 20 mile range commuters are a majority of our dedicated drivers. This type of information allows us to target programs on our TMP that will have the greatest impact for our transportation issues. The Navy is committed to implementing innovative transportation demand management policies through TMP to reduce SOV trips to the Washington Navy Yard. The Navy is currently refining and redeveloping the following TDM measures. We're on board to hire a regional employee transportation coordinator. We are taking measures to reduce SOV trips to the Washington Navy Yard. We are also heavily promoting variable work schedules. The Navy will evaluate the TMP every two years and update it every five. The Navy looks to continue its close coordination with NCPC staff throughout the master planning process for the six Department of Navy installations. We have listed out here the agencies and offices. We also intend to include as we move forward with these master plan updates. Next step. We are currently planning on submitting the draft Washington Navy Yard master plan in the December/January time frame and continue our work with NCPC staff to get to a final approved master plan. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Montgomery. COMMISSIONER McGILL: I've got several questions, partly to you and partly to staff. As I recall, the Washington Navy Yard has more parking than the NCPC ratios would call for. Is that correct? MR. DETTMAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER McGILL: You said the Navy Yard isn't planning on increasing its parking. MR. DETTMAN: No, sir. COMMISSIONER McGILL: But you didn't say they are planning on decreasing the parking. MR. DETTMAN: That is correct. What we are hoping to do is through the different mitigation measures we are hoping to implement we can get closer to that ratio. Right now nothing is going to happen overnight. I mean, this is a problem that we are trying to address long-term and we are hoping that after the five years is up and we are required to update this master plan again we can show that the measures we've taken have made a significant increase in putting us closer to the required ratio. COMMISSIONER McGILL: Like in the Long-term you show an area in the lower right- hand corner that was brown in the existing but was blue in the proposed so that looks like you are thinking about eliminating parking. MR. DETTMAN: It's potentially an option but I don't definitely know if that is going to happen as of right now. COMMISSIONER McGILL: Okay. Second question, I think more for the staff. I'm curious why you would agree on a Navy Yard Master Plan being the highest priority for submission when they are only proposing to increase their staff by 300 people over the next five, 10 years versus other facilities like Anacostia-Bolling where much more ambitious plans are in place and, therefore, more important decisions are going to come before the Commission that should be contrasted against a master plan. MR. DETTMAN: I don't think today's presentation is intended to give the Commission an idea of when the particular installation master plans are going to be submitted. The Navy Yard was simply presented to you as kind of an example of what the overall structure of the master plan will be. It's going to be a short-term based on a five- year window that's tied to the military's budget process. In the long-term it's going to take a long-term look at what the particular agency wants to do with the installation long-term in transportation, land use, etc. I think your point about the Navy Yard having small growth and JBAB potentially seeing big growth is a very good point. We can talk to the Navy going forward about which ones which think should be coming in sooner rather than later. MR. ACOSTA: I would also point out the Bolling Master Plan was actually brought before the Commission a few months ago so that was something that was on the talk. Also the Commission over time has taken a position regarding the Navy Yard in terms of completing the master plan before they see future projects. That's been in writing for many years. I think the Navy understands the urgency of getting both done but I think they have been working through this process and I believe that this presentation will show you that. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Other questions? Ms. Tregoning. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: At some point I think it would be helpful to know sort of what are the values or the objectives of the planning process that the Navy proposes to undertake. The Commission has a sense of what it is you are trying to get to, what changes you're trying to make, environmental sustainability, stormwater, employee satisfaction, retention, whatever it might be, so that we get a bigger picture idea of what you are trying to accomplish by virtue of your planning process. MR. MONTGOMERY: Yes, ma'am. We have that information and we plan to incorporate it into the master plan so you will see that at the time we submit the draft. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I want to commend the Navy for their presentation. It's always helpful to have these informational presentations. As you stated up front, the objective was to talk about the process as opposed to the objectives of the plan which are established in NCPC supplemental guidance. I noted, too, with interest that the scope for the Slide No. 5 meets and exceeds a couple of the NCPC requirements for master planning so I commend you also on that effort as well as taking to heart some of the previous feedback that we have provided here at Commission meetings as well as DOD level meetings. You are headed at the right direction at the right speed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Montgomery, very much. Thank you, Mr. Provancha, for your continued assistance on some of these DOD related matters. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 5D is our last information presentation and it's on the Federal Triangle Stormwater Study. We have Ms. Tarce here. MS. TARCE: Good afternoon, Chairman, and members of the Commission. My presentation today will highlight the findings of the Federal Triangle Stormwater Drainage Study which was conducted by the consulting firms of Greeley and Hansen and LimnoTech. In addition to Greeley and Hansen's report, the working group prepared a companion report that documents the context of the multi-agency efforts to address flooding in the Monumental Core, clarifies how this study adds to our existing knowledge about the June 2006 flood, and describes in greater detail how the working group contributed to the development of the study. We plan to release a Federal Triangle Stormwater Drainage Study and the companion report to the public in the next few days and they will be downloadable from our NCPC website. As many of you know, the Washington D.C. region experienced record rainfall the week of June 25, 2006 which caused extensive flooding that crippled the transportation, commerce, and business operations in the region. In the Monumental Core several federal headquarter buildings in the Federal Triangle and the Smithsonian Museums flooded causing millions in damages, threatening the security of federal operations, and preservation of our national treasures. Since the 2006 flood federal and district agencies have committed time and resources to address the flooding issues in the Monumental Core including several flooding studies. In June 2007 NCPC convened the multi-agency flood forum which recommended policies to address flooding in the monumental core. The Federal Triangle Stormwater Drainage Study is one of many recommendations from that flood forum. In October 2008 DCOP, DDOE, FEMA, GSA, the Smithsonian, and D.C. Water committed to fund this study. Another eight agencies completed the working group. NCPC staff managed the project for the working group. My presentation has five parts. I'll outline the scope of the study, present the existing conditions, and highlight the findings. Then I will briefly discuss the important considerations the decision makers will need to address and the working group's next steps. Our study area includes the buildings in the Federal Triangle, the National Gallery of Art, and the Smithsonian Museums immediately south of Constitution Avenue in the National Mall. The study analyzed how the sewer system performed during the 2006 flood using a flood model that combined surface runoff and existing sewer system. Through the flood modeling the consultants were able to determine the ponding levels for various storms. More importantly, this study evaluated and analyzed the viability of six stormwater management alternatives highlighted in orange on the right column, and the effectiveness of an early-warning system. The study only focused on area-wide solutions and did not evaluate site-by-site solutions such as flood proofing of buildings. So what do we know today about the sewer system that serves the Federal Triangle? The Federal Triangle served by the combined sewer system during periods of heavy rainfall the capacity of the combined sewer may be exceeded and the excess flow, which is a mixture of stormwater and sanitary waste water, is discharged directly to the Anacostia River. Two sewer lines serve the Federal Triangle. Both lines run along Constitution Avenue but in opposite direction and are designed to handle no more than a 15-year storm event. The Federal Triangle is the lowest point of a drainage basin that is 24 times its size. When it rains, stormwater from higher ground within this large drainage basin outlined in purple on the map flows down to the Federal Triangle through the sewer pipes and on street surfaces. So what happened during the 2006 flood? We learned that most of the rain fell between 9:00 p.m. on June 25 and 1:00 a.m. the next day. The amount of rain that fell exceeded the 200 year storm event. If you think about it, the sewer system can only handle a 15-year storm and we got a 200-year storm. Even though we found that the sewer system and the pumping stations were all working, it was not the size to handle such a big storm. The Potomac River was not at flood stage and did not contribute to the 2006 flood. The 17th Street levy closure project, which is under construction, protected the Monumental Core from river flooding but not from interior drainage flooding. So address interior draining flooding the working group and the consultants identified six structural alternatives and found that three are viable solutions for mitigating flooding due to a 50-year, 100- year, and 200-year storm return frequencies. The working group selected the 100-year design flood since this is the basis for FEMA's flood insurance program. To account for climate change in the form of more frequent severe storms, we also looked at the 200-year storm event. The first two alternatives, which considered low-impact development strategies such as bioswales and green roofs to capture storm water, cannot mitigate flooding if they are employed as stand-alone solutions but they can contribute to improving water quality in the water shed and reducing the amount of stormwater discharged into the combined sewer system. The first viable alternative involved constructing storage tanks under the Mall to collect excess water from the Federal Triangle and reusing that water to irrigate the landscaping inside the Mall. We looked at a range of storage capacities under the Mall and found that these storage tanks are significantly larger than what NPS is currently constructing for their own use. The second alternative is a very straightforward solution. It's adding a pumping station that will draw water out of the Federal Triangle and discharge it into the Tidal Basin. The third alternative, also very straightforward, engineering solution, is the construction of a 14 foot diameter or a 20 foot diameter sewer pipe that will connect to the O and Maine Street pumping station near the Nationals' Stadium. For this study the working group did not recommend a specific alternative at this time because they realized that there are other important considerations before the best alternative can be identified. As the table shows, the system- wide solution pose significant cost. We also know that large-scale projects such as the structural alternatives for a 100-year and 200-year flood involved lengthy time periods for implementation and complex political and procedural requirements that could determine their practicality. The fact that flooding can happen in any given year in the Federal Triangle study area makes short-term solutions attractive but these solutions such as site- by-site flood protection do not solve the flooding problem. The working group also contemplated the viability of a hybrid solution as a less expensive way of mitigating for flooding using a combination of smaller and less costly alternatives to buy down the flood risk. For instance, we could collect the first one and one-and-a-half inch of rain through low-impact development such as bioswales and green roofs and then capture the stormwater in underground storage tanks, perhaps at the National Mall. And then using the existing sewer to discharge the remaining stormwater and with the residual risk of floods we can protect our buildings by flood proofing them. There are also ancillary benefits for some of the alternatives that are beyond the scope of the consultant's work to determine. Low-impact development strategies, although they may not mitigate flooding, have environmental and social benefits beyond reducing the stormwater that the sewer system has to handle. Multi-purpose solutions such as using perimeter security walls as flood barriers for buildings could provide the best return on public investments. The working group recently used predicted ponding levels for Constitution Avenue from this study to protect their buildings from potential flooding due to hurricanes Irene and Lee. Most of the buildings have some level of protection already but with the new data and more accurate models for the Federal Triangle drainage area, they will better prepare to protect their building from severe storm events and they have a better understanding of the vulnerability of their facilities from future flooding. WMATA is also using the ponding elevation data to design protections for air vent shafts in the Federal Triangle. With the understanding of the limitations of the existing sewer system, the high capital cost required for system-wide solution, and the need for short-term mitigation, the working group decided to further evaluate their facility's vulnerability to flooding and determine whether they need additional flood protection for their well being. On October 31, 2011, NCPC, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and FEMA will be hosting a flood seminar to offer training that explains how Executive Order 11988 applies to existing federal buildings in the flood plain such as the case in the Federal Triangle. The Corps and FEMA will also provide tools to help the working group conduct a vulnerability assessment as well as provide techniques for flood proofing their buildings. Our working group will also share the lessons they learned in selecting and using the type of flood proofing for their buildings. We are also offering optional site visits of the Smithsonian Natural History Museum as part of our vulnerability assessment discussion, and the National Archives for a demonstration of their self-rising floodgates. That concludes my presentation and I am available to answer any questions. We also have our partner Roger Gans from D.C. Water to assist me in answering any of your questions. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Ms. Tarce. Comments on the study or questions for Ms. Tarce? Mr. Hart. COMMISSIONER HART: Obviously this is a pretty important study. I am encouraged that you are looking at flood events that are beyond the 100-year flood hazard. It reminded me of my experience when I was doing Hurricane Katrina work after the entire Gulf Coast was inundated. There were visitors from Belgium and the Netherlands that came out to witness the damage. In taking them around the Corps of Engineers was showing these folks the levies. The visitor said, "What event were you trying to prevent here? " When the Corps of Engineers said, "We are trying to prevent the 100-year event," these guys were speechless. The Corps said, "What are you calculating? " They said, "The 10,000-year flood event and that's not good enough." I think the core of our Government's agencies warrants a much higher standard than the corner store or somebody's house in trying to prevent damage and to mitigate any of these kinds of events. The higher the standard the better, particularly given the fact that these are extremely important agencies and artifacts that are in this area. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Commenting about Katrina in this presentation, I've heard it was sponsored by Federal Facilities Council and the National Research Council. General Russel Honore had a small role in that recovery effort and there was multiple lessons learned such as raising the standard to a 500-year event at a minimum, taking critical infrastructure out of basements of federal facilities, and moving them to upper floors, those types of things. I highly recommend his published report. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. May. COMMISSIONER MAY: Yeah, a couple questions. Can you explain to me what the difference is between 200-year and 100-year and 15-year floods in terms of how many inches of rain that is or how many inches per hour or whatever? The automatic reflex is to think a 200-year event is twice as bad as a 100-year event which is not anywhere close to the truth. MS. TARCE: Roger, would you like to answer that? Do we need the book? We don't have our numbers right now. MR. GANS: I can't answer with numbers. The events are determined by the frequency and duration -- I mean, the intensity and duration of the storm. NOAA publishes that kind of data. You would have to know both the intensity and the duration and then you could figure out what kind of event it is, 15 years on the average, once every 15 years and so forth. Does that answer your -- COMMISSIONER MAY: No. Relatively speaking how much worse is it to have -- I mean, let's compare it to the 2006 event where we had five hours of rain. Right? I mean, that was intense rain. MR. GANS: I would have to look at the table. COMMISSIONER MAY: How many inches did we have in that event in five hours? Do you remember? Does anybody know that number? MR. GANS: Not without the report. MS. TARCE: I don't have that. For June 2006 we do have it in our report. COMMISSIONER MAY: Right. MS. TARCE: But for purposes of this presentation we didn't want to get bonged down with all the numbers. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. Well, I did alert people that I was going to get into the numbers a little bit at this presentation so I'm a little surprised. Anyway, I'll just read the report. How much larger than -- this what you're showing right there, how much larger is that than what the Park Service is planning to build with the Mall Turf Project? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Ms. Tarce, use the microphone. MS. TARCE: I don't know if you can see. There is a little sliver up the yellow here right in the street. COMMISSIONER MAY: Yes. MS. TARCE: That's the scale of what the Park Service is building. This is the scale for a 50-year storm. The purple is for 100-year and then the red for 200-year. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. MS. TARCE: This whole -- the combination of all three colors will be for a 200-year storm. COMMISSIONER MAY: Are those the same depth of the cistern? MS. TARCE: Ours is 15-feet deep. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. I don't remember what ours are. And this graph will be in the report that you will release shortly? MS. TARCE: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. And then the last question I have is with the sewer option, adding a 14 to 20-foot sewer to the O Street pumping station, would that then mean that the O Street pumping station needs to be upgraded to handle the additional volume or is there capacity? MR. GANS: There's capacity. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. And the sewer would actually have to be a tunnel because there is no way to get a regular sewer through that area. MR. GANS: I can’t imagine trying to drop a 14 foot sewer into that. That would be a problem. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. McGill. COMMISSIONER McGILL: I'd like to congratulate Amy for really doing an excellent job of overseeing the study. GSA contributed $100,000 to it and we were active participants in the process. We were able to use the data that the study generated to prepare for Hurricane Irene. We listened to the weather forecast. They talked about how many inches were going to fall over a six or 12 hour period. We then looked at the table from the flood study. We computed the estimated level of ponding that would occur on Constitutional Avenue under a worse-case scenario in this situation. We put 15,000 sandbags along Constitution Avenue so it was very useful. MS. TARCE: And I wanted to -- actually, Peter, I wanted to follow up if maybe that's really what you are trying to find out. If you are doing some future planning, how are you going to prepare for a 200-year flood because we did provide the ponding level predictions all along Constitution Avenue for all of the intersecting streets. You could use that for planning for the future. COMMISSIONER MAY: I'm less concerned about sort of the planning aspects of it because when we venture down that road we do it in partnership with either D.C. Water or Corps of Engineers in the case of the levy and things like that. I was just mostly trying to get sort of an order of magnitude sense of these events. That is not apparent from what you have here. Hopefully I can glean that from the report. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Technical question about pipe sizing 14 to 20 feet. Is that -- we had experience with a project at the Pentagon to take clean water from the Columbia Island Lagoon, pump it through our refrigeration plant and the out-fall section of the line at Roaches Run Lagoon north of Reagan Airport. We found that because it was clean we could use fiberglass reinforced pipe and we could downsize it because of the improved coefficient of friction. We went from something like a 60-inch pipe to a 48-inch pipe. Would that also work for sanitary sewer so you could downsize? MR. GANS: With those magnitudes and sizes not too much I don't think. Probably it would have to be reinforced concrete and you could line it with something to get a little better friction factor and a little more capacity. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: The reason I'm asking is when we had favorable conditions we were able to use the piping as the tunneling mechanism so you tunnel and you lay pipe at the same time so it was quicker, cheaper, faster, and more effective and smaller in diameter. MR. GANS: This is an awful lot longer run so you probably have -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Probably the type of tunnel that we're going to be putting in for our river project which is greater than a Metro-size tunnel. This one will be almost as big. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Anything else? Other comments or questions? Hearing none, thank you, Ms. Tarce, very much. MS. TARCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Is there anything else to come before the Commission before we adjourn? Hearing nothing, thank you for your attendance today. We've had a good long meeting. A lot of good information. A lot of important projects covered. We will see you next month. The meeting is adjourned.