To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

National Register of Historic Places listings in Fauquier County, Virginia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Location of Fauquier County in Virginia
Location of Fauquier County in Virginia

This is a list of the National Register of Historic Places listings in Fauquier County, Virginia.

This is intended to be a complete list of the properties and districts on the National Register of Historic Places in Fauquier County, Virginia, United States. The locations of National Register properties and districts for which the latitude and longitude coordinates are included below, may be seen in an online map.[1]

There are 64 properties and districts listed on the National Register in the county, including 1 National Historic Landmark.

This National Park Service list is complete through NPS recent listings posted May 17, 2019.[2]
Map all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap 
Download coordinates as: KML · GPX

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    361
  • ✪ National Capital Planning Commission (USA), July 2013

Transcription

CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Okay. Welcome. This is the National Capital Planning Commission's July 11, 2013 meeting. If you would please, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Again, welcome. I do note that today's meeting is being live-streamed on the NCPC website. We do have a quorum and the meeting is now called to order and we will proceed with the agenda as has been publicly noticed and advertised. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 1 is the Report of the Chairman. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: And I only have one item to note and that is to remind my colleagues here of the July 24th, 10:00 a.m., Special Workshop on the Height Act. So you have been previously notified. Please, make sure that July 24, 10:00 a.m. to noon, is on your calendars for the Commission work session on the Height Act Study and it will be right here. Agenda Item No. 2 is the Report of the Executive Director, Mr. Acosta. MR. ACOSTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. Just piggybacking on the Height Act discussion, as you note in front of you, there is a series of public meetings that we are going to have on Phase 2 of our Height Act Study. You will hear a bigger presentation later today by David Zaidain and also at our July 24th meeting, but we would like to invite members of the public to attend these public meetings. They will be held between August 3rd and August 13th. You can go to our website and you'll find out more information about details and locations of these meetings. We also invite our Commissioners to attend these meetings, too. I know that many of you attended the Phase 1 meetings and I hope they were very instructive in terms of getting information from the public and also hearing their views. I would also like to thank the Commission for -- Commissioner Hart, Wright and Tregoning for attending the June 20th and 21st meeting that we had with the National Academy of Science Infrastructure Board. They have convened a panel of experts to provide advice on infrastructure projects and governance in the Southwest Eco District. We also were joined by members of GSA and the Mayor's Office and other federal and local agencies to discuss how to move this project forward. I think the results were very interesting and good and we will report more about the conclusions of that at a future meeting. I would like to make some personnel announcements. First, we would like to welcome back John William Carroll. He is a returning summer intern from the District of Columbia Summer Youth Employment Program. He is a rising junior at the University of Oklahoma majoring in meteorology. And he will assist with the Agency's Record Management Program. I would also like to welcome back a community planner, Sarah Moulton, who will be working -- who will re rejoining our Physical Planning Division. And finally, I would like to announce that David Zaidain who has been with the Commission since 2002 is leaving NCPC tomorrow to become Amtrak's Project Director for its Union Station Redevelopment Project. As you know, David has worked on our Comprehensive Plan Update and Height of Buildings Master Plan. We thank David for his very important contributions to the Commission and wish him all the best at his new position at Amtrak. So congratulations to David. MR. ACOSTA: He will also be presenting today, so we will get an opportunity to say our farewells. So anyway, that concludes my report. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Acosta. And we, too, will miss David very much. He has been here for 10 years and done excellent work. I'm pleased others are recognizing his professionalism and I look forward to continuing to cross paths in your new role. We will miss you. Agenda Item No. 3 is the Legislative Update and, Ms. Schuyler. MS. SCHUYLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three items which I would like to report. The first is House of Representatives Bill 588, which I have been discussing with you off and on for the past few months. This is the House Bill that would allow donor recognition inside the Vietnam Veterans Visitor Center. This particular act was passed on May 6th by the House and sent to the Senate. When it reached the Senate, the Senate passed a substitute bill which broadened the topic to Generic Donor Recognition and Standards and that would be applicable to all commemorative works. When the House -- when the Senate sent its version back to the House, the House rejected that and they reinstated its original bill and at the same time created a free-standing bill, a second bill which is HR 2297, that would address the generic -- the issue of Generic Donor Recognition. Yesterday the Senate passed this version, so, therefore, the bill is on its way to the President. And again, this bill will allow donor recognition at the Vietnam Visitors Memorial Center only. Now, the other free-standing bill which would address general donor recognition provisions for all has been introduced, as I said, HR 2297, and this has been referred to-- I'm sorry, Senate version -- I'm sorry. HR 2395 and it has been sent to Committee and we are being advised that the Committee expects to hold a hearing on it this month. COMMISSIONER MAY: Can I -- MS. SCHUYLER: Peter, you perhaps would like to -- COMMISSIONER MAY: I just want to add that hearing has been scheduled for the 19th. MS. SCHUYLER: Okay. Okay. The second bill is Senate version -- Senate 1046, known as the Native American Veterans Memorial Amendment Act of 2013. And what this is proposing to do is to amend a 1994 Act to allow the construction of a Native American Veterans Memorial on the property of the National Museum of the American Indian versus under the current law it is restricted to a location in the interior of the museum. This has been referred to Committee and it reflects similar bills that have been introduced in previous sessions of Congress. The last bill is HR 2297 which is the National Mall Revitalization and Designation Act. This was introduced by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. She has done so in the last three Congresses. And what this would do is authorize NCPC to designate and modify the boundaries of the National Mall, the Reserve area that are available for the location of Commemorative Works. That has been referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and its Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you. Any questions or comments for Ms. Schuyler? Hearing none, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 4 is the Consent Calendar. We have two items on the Consent Calendar. Item 4A is the Building Modernization and Expansion Project at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Headquarters. Agenda Item 4B is Phase 2 of the Russell Road Widening Project at Marine Corps Base Quantico. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: The information has been before you. Are there any questions on these, either of these two consent items? COMMISSIONER HART: I had a question on the Russell Road Widening. I didn't see any discussion about stormwater management, siltation controls. Are there any improvements that are associated with stormwater management, because this lies immediately adjacent to significant wetlands. MS. SAUM: Mike Weil is the project officer and he is out today. My recollection is that that was all addressed in the -- this is Phase 3 of a multi-phase project and that all the stormwater management was handled as part of previous submissions, but I can review that again and get back to you. COMMISSIONER HART: Yeah, on the drawings that were included in the package, the limits of disturbance didn't seem to include anything other than the road widening and sidewalks. MS. SAUM: That's my understanding is that it is not going to affect the wetlands that are adjacent to the road. COMMISSIONER HART: It's surprising because you are doubling the impervious area through there. MS. SAUM: Well, the wetlands are on the, my understanding, south side of the road and all of the widening is being done on the north side of the road, if my recollection serves me properly so that they won't have to disturb the wetlands. And they are -- there is -- as I said before, when I -- when Mike and I met with the applicant to review all the drawings. We did see stormwater management material that was included in the drawings. It may not -- all the discussion of that may not be included in the EDR, but we can go there with you afterwards if you care -- COMMISSIONER HART: I would appreciate it. If that's the case, that's fine. I just didn't see anything in the write-up. MS. SAUM: Yes. COMMISSIONER HART: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Any other questions on either Consent Agenda item? Hearing none, is there a motion on the Consent Agenda? It has been moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no? Consent Agenda is passed. Moving to the Action Items. Agenda Item No. 5A is the Department of Commerce, Herbert Hoover Building Site Improvements and Perimeter Security, not a new topic. Then we have Mr. Walton. MR. WALTON: So good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Today GSA has submitted the Herbert Hoover Building for preliminary and final site development plans and perimeter security design. The Hoover Building houses the headquarters for the Department of Commerce as well as the White House Visitor Center along the north side of the site along Pennsylvania Avenue and the proposed National Aquarium relocation on the south side of the site along Constitution Avenue. I'll start with some background. So as you know, the site is located here in the Federal Triangle between 14th and 15th Streets and Constitution Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue on what might be the longest site in the city of nearly a quarter mile in length. Since the revised concept submission, GSA has completed a supplemental environmental assessment, received a finding of no significant impact. They have also completed a Section 106 Historic Preservation Review and have a signed Memorandum of Agreement with the consulting agencies. GSA has taken a two-layer approach to the perimeter security design with the first layer to provide the appropriate balance between the need to accommodate perimeter security for the building and its occupants and a second layer maintaining the vitality of the public realm, to provide security within the context of streetscape enhancements and public realm beautification. So these images represent the existing conditions around the perimeter of the Hoover Building. And as you can see, it is in need of some update. So at the revised concept submission in February, GSA asked or and received approval to place security elements within the public space. This was in an effort to improve the pedestrian experience along the almost quarter mile length of 14th and 15th Streets. The updated elements include bollard design and security walls, cable rail fencing systems, bike racks, collapsible concrete and planters and Low Impact Development. The Commission had several comments related to different aspects of the security design. Those comments were related to the point-loaded collapsible concrete, sidewalk curb cuts, the visual impact and the scale of those curb cuts along 14th and 15th Streets, assurance that placing security elements within a public space would, indeed, create a better pedestrian experience and incorporating a bus shelter, a shelter as part of the security design elements, and variation and design of the Low Impact Development. I'll go over how GSA has addressed each of these comments within the context of the perimeter of security, starting with the pedestrian experience along 14th and 15th Street. So no both the north and south ends of 14th and 15th Street, GSA has proposed cable rail fencing as perimeter security. The fencing is located between the curb line and the building yard along the sidewalks as shown here with the solid red lines and here. The cable rail fencing is designed to meet the required Level 4 security rating and since the revised concept submission has been simplified, design material will be more consistent with DDOT's Streetscape Design Guidelines. The elements within the building yard are designed to be more consistent with the existing building. At eight areas around the perimeter of the site, there is an overlap between the security walls and the cable rail fencing. This overlap creates additional security and it is here where GSA had proposed the collapsible concrete, but has since removed it. The thought is is that it would be difficult for cars to maneuver in between the security wall and the fencing and into the building yard. GSA has also provided lead-walks, which are wide openings between LID to allow pedestrians to exit cars and entry into the sidewalk area. These lead-walks are an access with conversational seating nodes and are located within the building area. In addition, GSA has provided bike racks as security elements at both ends of 14th Street. And so it's a combination of all these elements, the bike racks, the fencing, the security walls, the street trees and the lead-walks as well as the seating nodes that create a greater and more enhanced pedestrian experience along both 14th and 15th Streets. Along Constitution Avenue, the proposed National Aquarium relocation has been approved at the concept level and that includes bollard designs and ramp systems, signage and security fencing as shown here. It will be located here within this blue bubble at the bottom of the plan. However, funding isn't available for the aquarium at this time. And so GSA has proposed placing cable rail fencing and security walls within the building yard as shown here, which is similar to what is being proposed at 14th and 15th Streets. Cars go into the site from the 14th and 15th -- into the 14th and 15th Street parking lots via these pop-up style vehicle barriers shown here on the right. These replace the elements shown on the left. These elements are similar to those currently being used at the National Gallery of Art and the State Department. The areas here, the dotted red line shows the location of those vehicle barriers and plan. The space between the barriers would be protected by bollards. The Commission also had concerns about the scale or the size of the openings and curb cuts along 14th and 15th Street. As you can see, these are pretty wide openings here. And I'll ask you to take a note of where the location of these medians is because the Commission also had concerns about the visual impact of cars parking within these curb cuts. You can see the cars that pull right up to the edge of that median. And so GSA has responded by taking these existing median strips here and extending those out to the curb line here. So that eliminates the parking problem. They have also landscaped these curb cuts into these median strips, so the -- it enhances the public realm and also makes the pedestrian experience a little better. At the White House Visitor Center, these existing lawn panels have been extended north and are now in line with the existing planter beds located here. Now, these planter beds are currently at-grade planter beds, but as part of that design, those will be extruded up to create raised planter beds. They will be constructed of reinforced concrete and clad in granite with seating on either end near the entrance. There will be a row of bollards that are integrated with the existing light standards, which will be reinforced to serve as security elements as well as across the entrance. There is a slight slope along Pennsylvania Avenue between 14th and 15th Street. And so as you can see, the planter beds dip gently down towards the entrance of the building. At the main entrance on 14th Street, the planter beds that flank either side of the main entrance plaza will be extended. They will also be extruded up to create raised planter beds. They will also be constructed of reinforced concrete, clad in granite with bench seating on all four sides. As you can see, there is a row of bollards across the existing entrance plaza. In the revised concept, those bollards were of a grayer, sort of silver with anodized aluminum color with flagpole shifted slight back off about 10 feet. The current design, you can see the flagpoles are now in line with the existing bollards. They are sleeved over bollards to create security elements themselves and the bollards are now a black anodized aluminum to match other elements around the perimeter of the site. So along 14th and 15th Street along with the replacement of some street trees here, some plan will be integrated into a Low Impact Development system, an LID, which is a current infrastructure system. The LID will be integrated into the existing curb line creating some modifications to allow storm water to enter into the tree planting area, capturing and storing stormwater for both the street and from the site. Now, this approach reduces the load on the existing stormwater and sewer system during storm events, the design of the LID also and increases -- decreases the impervious surface around the perimeter of the building by 16 percent and exceeds the DDOE Stormwater Retention Standard by 67 percent. With that, the Executive Director recommends that the Commission approves the preliminary final site development plans for the site improvements and perimeter security at the Hoover Building and notes that should the concept design come back in for the National Aquarium that the preliminary -- that perhaps we need to return to NCPC for preliminary and final review. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my presentation. We have members of GSA here, Suzy Hill as well as representatives from RTKL, the design firm. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Terrific. Thank you, Mr. Walton. This has been a model project as it has progressed over the various stages. Questions or comments from the Commission Members? Ms. Wright? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Well, you know, I have to beat my chest a little bit. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Please do. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: And mostly say thank you. We have had -- it has been a long strange trip, but we are very proud of the results. And I think the design team and my group at OPDQ and the Department of Commerce should all be congratulated for their, if nothing else, patience and persistence. And for my friend and colleague, Mr. Hart, I just want to make sure that you noticed the stormwater, that we have surpassed the stormwater management requirement by 32 percent. Did you read that? COMMISSIONER HART: Unopposed. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Okay. Good. So a couple of other notes. One, on the tiger trap, do not despair for those of you who are really fond of the idea. Do you remember the colorful conversation we had about courses? Well, there is a tiger trap similar to the one we were looking to install in Battery Park City, I think. And it had -- it was at 15,000 pounds. Well, that's a little much for us. So we didn't have time to do the engineering and the testing and the certification, but never fear, we have the rest of the Federal Triangle to figure it out, because this is the first building and we have -- we are moving on with IRS, Justice and EPA forthwith, but this was the important thing to get right and I think we did. We can argue over the more subjective qualities of the design and I'm anxious to hear from you, Mr. May, about whether or not you think we hit the target on improving the public space and the pedestrian experience. We think we did. We can -- there is a lot to debate about that, but there are certainly objective measures here that we are pretty happy to have hit. So thank you for your indulgence, everyone. My chest beating is over. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. May, would you like to return volley? COMMISSIONER MAY: No. I'm very happy with the end result. I do have a couple of questions, but I do want to particularly note that the non-tiger trap solution and overlaying the layers of security is a way of meeting the security requirements for the building. I'm very pleased to know that that has worked, because, you know, that's one of the concerns that I had is that, you know, we would be -- we would want to pursue this because of the prospect of having the sidewalk condition unobstructed by bollards, but we wind up with bollards anyway. And I am glad that we have not wound up with bollards and I plan to use this whenever I can to point out to our security people that there are ways to solve this, probably like this without having to use bollards in the public space. So and overall, I mean, everything else with the project, I think, is quite fine. I'm very pleased with where it has wound up. I do have a question. Would you mind bringing up the images of the curb cuts and the driveways and all of that? Because I was particularly concerned about that. And I saw it all so quickly that, I'm not sure I fully understand everything. MR. WALTON: That's the existing condition and that's the proposed. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. Could you go back to the existing condition for a second again? Yes, see, it's just very hard to see that, but I know what it looks like in real-life. And then if you could flip slowly through the other photos? MR. WALTON: Okay. So the proposed is -- COMMISSIONER MAY: Well, hold on. So in this case, what we are actually seeing are people parked across the sidewalk. So it is well-beyond the -- COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Right. The bollards are further interior to the -- COMMISSIONER MAY: No. I think that there are just vehicles stacked up. Let's go to the next. Is it the next one? No, you had an image of -- there we go. Oh, so maybe that is exactly what it was, they were just lined up right there. MR. WALTON: Right. They will park where the lady is walking next to the building. COMMISSIONER MAY: Right. So it's unfortunate we don't have a view like this that shows what they are planning to do. Do you have anything like that? MR. WALTON: I've got a plan that shows -- COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. So we will look at that more carefully. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: You have another image though of the plan, that's the listing. MR. WALTON: No, this is the proposed. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: This is the -- COMMISSIONER MAY: It's the proposed. MR. WALTON: It's the proposed. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: -- proposed? What's the listing? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That's not right. Because the curb doesn't come out in the -- all the way to the sidewalk edging in the existing conditions. MR. WALTON: Right. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: The median, we do not call it a median. COMMISSIONER MAY: Yes, so I'm not sure what we are seeing with all of those break-lines, you know, between the parts of the image. MR. WALTON: I guess if we can go back to the overall. Whoops, wrong way. Here. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. So if I understand correctly, in the red box there we are going to see two fairly lengthy islands of green, right? I'm looking at the south of the lower image, the lower side. MR. WALTON: The lower? COMMISSIONER MAY: So we are going to see two fairly large islands of green there? And then the bollard line that crosses. There is going to be bollards in the middle of that or is the island itself going to provide the security? What are we going to experience when we walk down the sidewalk there, I guess? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Please identify yourself. MR. CORNELL: Good afternoon. My name is Brian Cornell. I'm the landscape architect with RTKL Associates working with GSA and the Department of Commerce on this particular effort. The proposed information as you are seeing in front of you, we will seek out as we have extended the outer most edge of the curb of the existing islands so that they align with the island and now aligns with the base of the curb on either 14th or 15th Street. We are still providing a level pedestrian -- we are now providing a level pedestrian sidewalk elevation consistent along the entire length of both 14th and 15th Street eliminating the need for handicap ramps that take you from the sidewalk pedestrian level down to the vehicular level. So in a sense, we are almost creating a speed reducing device for vehicles that are entering from 14th and 15th Street to be queued up to go through security before they enter into the courtyard. The intent is the extended or the extended component of the island would be a planted solution. It would be set behind or above the existing roadway surface, the height to the typical curb. So it would be set up about 6 inches. COMMISSIONER MAY: And then just the line of security is provided by bollards within that area? MR. CORNELL: Oh, yes, I'm sorry I missed that. Okay. What we are doing is we are running the -- the vehicular barriers are placed at the property or the building or aligned with the building yard line. And then in between each of those vehicular barriers, which obviously are positioned in the vehicular drive, we are looking at a single -- I think we are looking at a run of three or four bollards between each of those barriers. The intent there is to provide the officers who were providing the security screening operations with the most flexibility and being able to navigate throughout this area. COMMISSIONER MAY: And there will be a guard booth in there somewhere as well? MR. CORNELL: That is correct. There is a guard booth that is actually existing, but there are guard booths at each of the -- COMMISSIONER MAY: The existing will remain? Is that what you are saying? MR. CORNELL: The existing will remain. We are looking at potentially relocating some of those guard booths within each area relative to the -- to each drive as we start looking at utility concerns and conflicts. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Would you mind just going to the plan and pointing out what you are saying? I think I'm following you, but -- MR. CORNELL: Sure. COMMISSIONER WHITE: -- can you show us actually on the plan? COMMISSIONER MAY: Take a mike. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Take a mike with you. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. MR. CORNELL: All right. What we have done is we have taken the proposed perimeter line. We are running and getting this, okay, looking along 15th Street. We are running it from the building line where the perimeter line then intersects one of the three existing drives. We have positioned the vehicular barrier in line with that. Between each of the vehicular barriers, you can see there is a faint indication of, I believe there is, a grouping of three bollards between each of the vehicular barriers. As I have mentioned before, this was intentional in order to provide the officers who, in this case, would be operating out of the guard booth here, the greatest flexibility in terms of being able to move throughout and across or through this area and across the drives to screen the vehicles. And as I have mentioned earlier, what we have done is we have created a continuous pedestrian pathway outside of that perimeter line, both on 15th Street and on 14th Street so that the elevation, if you will, for the pedestrians is a continuous experience, thereby eliminating the need for handicap ramps to get pedestrians down to the vehicular level, the drive level, only to bring them back up to the sidewalk level once they pass through this vehicular area. And then lastly what we have done is currently the islands terminate just show of where the sidewalk area is. If you go back, you don't have to, but in the photographs the vehicles that were parked at those -- in those photographs the lanes of the existing island basically ends at the front of this van. What we are proposing is taking that existing curb line and extending it out so that it aligns with the curb line or, in this case, along 14th Street. The new section of island which exists between the sidewalk and where that curb nose is, if we go back, will be planted. So this little crescent-shaped or half-circular area would actually be a planted solution. We are not looking at tying that into the green infrastructure system intentionally, because we feel that in order to keep vehicles from coming up and driving through the planting area, obviously, the planting area would be raised up to prevent that from occurring. COMMISSIONER MAY: So if I understand you correctly, the screening will-- I mean, the officer in the booth there is going to come out to screen vehicles before they come through the gate, so they will be doing that in the ramp, if you will, up to the sidewalk? MR. CORNELL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. And then there was also something in the report about a prohibition against parking in that area. Is that right? Did I understand that correctly that they are going to change the policy and nobody is going to be parking there? Suzy, can you come up? MS. HILL: Right. Suzy Hill with GSA. Yes, currently, it is illegal parking. And so they are illegally parking in public space and Commerce actually permits that with the employees. And so with this project, they will be eliminating that. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. MS. HILL: And they are fully aware of the need to eliminate that. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. That's very good news. Okay. So I am still like left wanting for an image of what this looks like, because it sounds like you are hitting all the right points, but there is nothing that sort of captures what that actually looks like. So I'm hoping that, you know, you have seen exactly what it looks like. You have seen images that show you what like in three-dimensions what that is going to look like? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes. And where the cars -- COMMISSIONER MAY: And you love it? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: And this is not the designers doing. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Microphone. COMMISSIONER MAY: I understand. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: We are going light on that here. COMMISSIONER MAY: I understand. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: But CFA has seen it and is pointing to this project as a model project to which they are referring -- COMMISSIONER MAY: I'm just asking if you have seen it and -- COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: -- other clients. COMMISSIONER MAY: -- if you are happy with it. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Yes, of course or I wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER MAY: That's all. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: -- I don't drag dogs into here. COMMISSIONER MAY: She has been thumping her chest all day. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: This is my pet project. I'm just as proud as I can be of it, because it took two runs at it to get here. So yeah, I have seen it. I love it. COMMISSIONER MAY: A simple yes would have done it. Okay. Thanks. COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Yes. COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: I'm encouraged that the Commerce is going to try to do something about the parking. I think you better check the agreement that they entered into with a lot of employees, but I know a lot of them have been given that as a part of their package that they be able to park and that is going to be maybe some -- maybe a little pushback, but it's timely, because people are banging into cars and doing all kinds of stuff in there. I happen to know because I've been a victim of some of that in the past. It's very good. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you. Other comments or questions? Mr. Provancha? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Thank you, Mr. Walton, for the presentation. I guess now the record will officially state that a Government official has commented in a public domain that Commerce is sanctioning illegal parking, so that's an issue. Just one concern about the planters. Will the combined height of the planter plus the vegetation now create a visual impediment for turning drivers in that they will have difficulty egressing the building and being able to look in both directions as well as crossing the sidewalk perhaps encounter pedestrians that are competing for the same space at the same time? MR. CORNELL: As we move into the later design phase, including plant selection of which will play a role, no, we will be looking at low plant material that will not obstruct the view of drivers either entering from 14th or 15th Street that would potentially impose an issue with not only pedestrians, but also the officers working those entries and then also will be low enough so that vehicles who are exiting the Hoover site will have a clear line of sight into either 14th or 15th Street. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Very good. It looks like we first saw this project on March of '06 and so a short seven and a half years is a fast-track project in normal D.C. and NCPC standard time. Two other comments. One was about historic preservation. It looks like GSA has identified 14 different buildings or properties or so forth that have -- the term is area of potential effect. Mr. Walton mentioned that an MOU had been signed, that's great to -- adverse to address and mitigate these adverse effects and some of them are listed including an archeological exploration of survey for the Washington Canal to look for artifacts. It appears that that survey has not yet been done, but it is on the to-do list by the interested parties. MS. HILL: Yeah, and that will be during the construction phase. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: During construction? MS. HILL: So they will be monitoring before construction starts. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: There is an incomplete list that refers to protection of historic features and the incomplete list includes masonry, bronzework and landscaping. The concern was while the internal elements of the secure perimeter are now all aluminum cladding and/or black anodized aluminum and they are internally consistent within the security perimeter, are they also consistent with any exterior masonry and/or bronzework and/or landscaping? I couldn't really tell that as I was reading the narrative or listening to the presentation -- MS. HILL: Yeah and -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- whether those features have been identified and -- MS. HILL: Yeah, the -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- they are going to be respected -- MS. HILL: Yes. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- in the design. MS. HILL: And so in terms of the stone that is being used that is already at the site, the historic stone -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Right. MS. HILL: -- we will be working to match that. In effect, Amy can probably answer that questions better. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Let me clarify the question. For example, is there exterior bronzework that the black anodized aluminum security elements are respectful of or is all the bronzework on the interior of the building and it's not of concern? MS. WOODALL: Yes. My name is Amy Woodall. I'm the project architect with RTKL for this project. There are some exterior US 10B finish bronze elements on the building, so that's the statuary bronze. They are limited to light fixtures that are wall mounted on the building and then doors and door surrounds at the exterior of the building. And we feel like the black anodized aluminum treatment of the new security elements is sympathetic to both the DDOT pallet of materials and the statuary bronze that is on the existing building. And then as Suzy mentioned, we are utilizing the Stony Creek granite which is the granite that is found at the watertable base of the existing building. So that the new security elements that are clad in stone will actually match the granite that is on the building. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. Great. In addition to the bronzework and the landscaping and the masonry, what are some of the other historic elements that are being addressed under the terms of the MOU for mitigation of adverse impacts? MS. WOODALL: Suzy, do you want to talk more about those? We are going to be doing some interpretative side elements. There are several stone panels throughout the facade of the building that describe, I think, some of the early agencies that made up the Department of Commerce, some of them are decorative in nature in terms of replicate -- or describing like shields and agencies that were originally part of the Department of Commerce. Others are quotes from some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. And so there we will be hoping to incorporate technology and have a way to, you know, do a red laser scan on some of the elements that will take you directly to the Department of Commerce website that has inventory of some of these interesting -- more interesting statuary elements about the exterior of the building. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: So the incorporation of these "tin plaques" and other site fixtures that are incorporated into the perimeter security elements, that is the -- demonstrates respect for the existing historic panels? Is that -- MS. WOODALL: Right. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Is that the connection? MS. WOODALL: Yes. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. And the last question is just about holistic planning. As we know in D.C., we have an iconic landscape and urban planning, a tremendous amount of historic preservation. The planning that we do has multiple impacts. Unfortunately, many times adverse impacts to the nature of our planning. For example, when we look -- I think we haven't quite hit that sweet spot between piecemeal and holistic. For example, if you cumulatively look at the effects of flooding, air pollution, helydon, tree canopy, transportation, stormwater management, perviousness or imperviousness, the pedestrian experience, public infrastructure and now new challenges such as Bikeshare, I think we continue to do this in more, if you look at a scale, toward piecemeal than we do holistically, because I don't think that we are adding up and keeping score forestation, deforestation and those types of things. So my -- I heard a comment well, we will get it right when we look at the remainder of the Federal Triangle that was -- as opposed to a comforting comment, that was a little bit troubling. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That's not what I said. That's not what I said. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. Please clarify. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: What I said was that we will be able to by that time -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Roll the tape, please. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: -- we may be able to incorporate because we will have time to do the engineering and the testing and the certification to use tiger traps to eliminate, we hope, still more of the bollards. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Gotcha. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That does not suggest that we haven't gotten it right here. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Gotcha. Important distinction. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Thank you for clarifying that. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Thank you. And I would like to address the black -- the choice of the black finishes. It was very purposeful. And that's again a philosophical question in whether or not a 21st Century addition to the building in the from of perimeter security needs to announce itself or needs to try and hide. And we made a very purposeful decision that it couldn't hide and so this was yet another design decision made to help announce itself as a very modern addition with a modern function. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: It seems like a very reasonable compromise. You can go with the ornate high-maintenance, low-durability bronze materials or you can go with more durable or lower-maintenance. I think that's a good compromise. That's all the question. MS. WOODALL: If I may as well, looking at the Federal Triangle in whole, the statuary bronze finish is not consistent as you move east toward Department of Justice. So we think that the black anodized aluminum is actually a good solution for -- a good holistic solution for the Federal Triangle. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. We will look forward to seeing that in future designs. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Ms. Tregoning? COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Just very briefly. I think it is a very admirable design and I think that you will be gratified to know that we will probably be returning to it over and over again as we look at other federal projects and how they handle perimeter security and stormwater management, in particular, and say why can't it be more like this project. So thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Sensing no further comments, would you, Ms. Wright, like to make the motion to approve this? COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Certainly. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: So it has been moved and seconded. All in favor of the motion say aye. ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no? Congratulations. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Nice. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Agenda Item No. 5B is the Old Post Office Building Redevelopment at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue and we have Ms. Hirsch. MS. HIRSCH: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. The General Services Administration has submitted preliminary site and building plans for the redevelopment of the old post office building. The old post office is located at 12th and Pennsylvania in the Federal Triangle. The project site consists of the old post office building itself and the pavilion annex, which was constructed in the early 1990s in the courtyard of the IRS building. To provide some context for the old post office, here you can see some historic and existing conditions of Pennsylvania Avenue. On the top is looking east towards the Capitol and on the bottom is looking west. The building was built between 1892 and 1899 and originally has the city post office as well as the Post Office Department and the Post Office Postmaster General. And it was designed in the Romanesque Revival-style. About 15 years after it opened, the city post office moved to its new location by Union Station and as implementation of the McMillan Plan was gearing up, it appeared that the demolition of the building was imminent. It was of a different architectural-style than what was envisioned by the McMillan Plan for the Federal Triangle and so, therefore, it was dubbed "older," and it's the old post office. However, because it was a relatively new building and the Government had invested quite a deal, a good deal of money into it, it was used for several decades to house various federal agencies. Demolition permits were actually issued in the 1970s of the building, but the Don't Tear It Down campaign as well as the efforts of Nancy Hanks and others were influential in developing proposals for its adaptive reuse. In the early 1980s, the building underwent a major rehabilitation and opened as a mixed use office and retail establishment. It was during this period that the Congress bells were installed in the tower and that an elevator was installed on the interior in order for visitors to be able to visit the top of the tower. In here you can see some additional views of the site today. The lower left is a view as you exit the Federal Triangle Metro Station, the existing C Street Plaza and the 11th Street Plaza. The building is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and is a contributing element to the Pennsylvania Avenue national historic site. So to provide some background on the project. The Old Post Office Redevelopment Act was passed by Congress in 2008. In March of 2011, GSA issued a request for proposals. And in February of 2012 selected the Trump organization as the preferred selected developer. Since selecting Trump, GSA has been working to negotiate a long-term ground lease with Trump as well as comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. GSA issued a finding of no significant impact in May of this year and also executed a programmatic agreement to address ongoing consultation under Section 106 for the project as it moves forward. In January of 2013, this Commission provided comments regarding the proposed zoning of the site noting that after the redevelopment, the property would remain federal -- under federal jurisdiction and, therefore, subject to NCPC in lieu of zoning authority. So here you can see the proposed site plan for the project. Through the redevelopment, the OPO will be converted from a mix of office and retail to a luxury hotel and conference center. Retail establishments inside the building will include fine dining, a spa as well as museum spaces. The clock tower will continue to be operated and open to the public. It will be operated by the National Park Service through an agreement with GSA. Two public plazas will be included in the project, one to the north along Pennsylvania Avenue and also one to the south along the former C Street right-of-way. In addition, the project proposes a driveway along the former 11th Street right-of-way to provide vehicular access to the site for taxis and limos as well as to provide access to valet parking which will be in the basement for the annex. So just to briefly summarize what the exterior modifications that will be made to the property are, as I mentioned, the redevelopment of the Pennsylvania Avenue Plaza in front of the building, the 11th Street driveway, the C Street Plaza to the south, the 10th Street entrance through the IRS Arcade will be open for special events and then skylights will be added to the roof on the rear of the property as well as some signage along 12th Street. And I'll just briefly go into a little more detail on each one of these. The main pedestrian point of entry for the hotel will be the Pennsylvania Avenue side where this plaza will be located. Temporary non-fixed seating will be added to the front of the building. However, no changes are proposed for either the Benjamin Franklin statute or the special artwork pavers in the sidewalk. New signage will be installed in the center arch of the building as well as some new awnings for the retail establishments in the hotel. Cafes on the plaza will activate Pennsylvania Avenue, which will achieve a goal of the Pennsylvania Avenue Plan from the 1970s and this is also consistent with policies in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Monumental Core Framework Plan. Public access in general to the building will be improved as existing planners that are located in front of the building on Pennsylvania Avenue will be removed as well as security screening that is on the interior. So here you can see some views of the proposed driveway and the former 11th Street driveway. This will serve as a pick-up and drop-off point for taxis and other vehicles coming to the hotel and it will also provide access to the valet garage that will be in the basement of the annex. There will be up to 150 parking spaces in the annex. You can also see here the renderings of the proposed signage that will be placed in the driveway for the hotel. With the introduction of the driveway, the annex will also be renovated, as this will become the hotel's conference center and grand ballroom. New steel and glass canopies are proposed for both the 11th Street entrance to the old post office as well as the main entrance to the ballroom that you see here. The renovation of the annex also, I should note, includes a new green roof for stormwater management and control and then a new exterior is also proposed for the annex. Two treatments have been proposed. One is stone that you see here on the right and the other is glass. This is an additional view looking south from Pennsylvania Avenue. You can see the driveway, the sign and then the renovated annex. And this is the option with glass. I just wanted to note that when CFA reviewed this a few months ago, they expressed a strong preference for the glass wall cladding and GSA is in the process of modifying the design in response to those comments. So with respect to the 11th Street driveway, staff focused on the history of the site, and in this photo from 1900 on the left you can see the original block configuration that OPO originally sat on with 11th Street to the east. And then the photo on the right, you can see that up until the late 1970s early 1980s, 11th Street was open and functioning as a street. 11th Street was formerly closed in the 1920s with the impending implementation of the McMillan Plan for the Federal Triangle, but it wasn't until the rehabilitation project in the early 1980s and some subsequent site improvements after 1981 when the street was actually physically closed. So staff's position is that the proposed driveway will reestablish the four-leg intersection that was historically present as well as the historic block configuration from the L'Enfant Plan. Though there will be some disruption to the pedestrian circulation with the driveway, there will be a marked crosswalk and signalization and this will be clearly marked to minimize any conflicts. In addition, GSA and Trump will be continuing to work with the District Department of Transportation on the final design of the driveway including the signalization and any other needed improvements. So here you can see the proposed traffic movement for the site. And staff wanted to quickly review through the EA and Section 106 process the other options that were evaluated for vehicular entrance and traffic patterns for the site and ultimately, why 11th Street was chosen as the preferred option. So a lay-by lane was considered for Pennsylvania Avenue, but this would have required additional curb cuts on Pennsylvania Avenue and it also probably would have required some kind of semi-circular driveway. And this was not desirable by any of the consulting parties. A lay-by lane was also considered for 12th Street. However, this would have impacted traffic, the traffic flow along 12th Street and, therefore, the District DDOT was not very supportive of that option. Consideration was given to using the C Street former right-of-way in the rear of the property, however, but this would have eliminated -- you wouldn't have been able to construct the public plaza that is proposed and it would have also increased the traffic along 12th Street. Also using C Street would have probably drawn activity off of Pennsylvania Avenue and this was not seen as a desirable condition. Also, just to note, the existing service drive off of 12th Street on the C Street right here provides entrance to the loading dock and that will continue to be used to service the hotel. Finally, GSA did consider an option of no on-site parking, so just to have valets that would take the cars off-site. However, that would have generated a lot of traffic coming to and from the site and also there would have been traffic impacts because there is no viable option really to install a lay-by lane around the site. So based on these traffic considerations as well as the historic preservation benefits of reestablishing the four-leg intersection and the block pattern, staff is supportive of the driveway in this location. So to facilitate the driveway as well as the public plaza improvements along Pennsylvania Avenue, NPS will be transferring jurisdiction of a portion of the sidewalk. This transfer will be subject to the Commission's review and so, therefore, is part of our recommendation. Staff is recommending that prior to or with the final plans for the project, that the transfer of jurisdiction and any related covenants be submitted with the project. On the south side of the building, C Street will serve as the primary entrance from visitors coming from the National Mall and the Federal Triangle Metro Station. And here again, a public plaza will be installed. Temporary furniture will be placed in the plaza and adjusted seasonally. In addition, the bikeshed that you see here on the lower left, this is non-original, so the building will be removed and the historic shed roof will be restored. Now, here you can see some images of what the public plaza will look like as well as the restoration of the shed roof that I was just speaking about. So the removal of the bikeshed, the restoration of the historic shed roof and the activation of the plaza are again consistent with policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the Framework Plan and this will enhance the public realm and improve the pedestrian experience. Staff notes that the signage proposed for this corner at 12th and C Street in this location down here does appear to be fairly large in scale and due to its configuration, may be blocking some views and therefore, we are recommending that as the design is finalized, GSA and the developer continue to work with all stakeholders to make sure that the signage is scaled appropriately for the setting of the building. The original design of the annex is featured in east/west connection from 10th Street through the IRS Building Arcade. However, since the closing of the annex, this entrance has been locked. With the redevelopment project, this entrance will be open during special events as an alternative to the entrance off of the 11th Street driveway. And to mark when this entrance is open, temporary signage will be placed by the building arcade. As I mentioned, the redevelopment also includes a proposal to install skylights in the roof off of C Street in the southern portion of the roof off of 11th Street. These historic photos indicate that at one time there were windows in this location, but they have been subsequently covered over in different rehabilitation projects. So the redevelopment project proposes to install skylights in the back portion of the building in order to provide additional light into the guest rooms that will be located on the top floor of the hotel. So overall, staff supportive of the redevelopment project as it will rehabilitate a nationally-significant historic resource while establishing a premier hotel and destination along Pennsylvania Avenue with a mix of uses. The two public plazas will enhance the public realm and improve the pedestrian experience of Pennsylvania Avenue and the Federal Triangle. And so with that, it's the Commission's recommendation -- or the Executive Director's recommendation to the Commission is to approve the preliminary site and building plans for the Old Post Office Redevelopment; to adopt GSA's finding of no significant impact for the OPO Redevelopment Environmental Assessment; and to request that GSA and the preferred selected developer continue to refine the designs for signage throughout the site; and to ensure that signage and canopies are appropriately scaled and oriented to the setting of the Old Post Office; and finally requires that the transfer of jurisdiction to facilitate the introduction of a driveway in the former 11th Street right-of-way and to accommodate outdoor seating in front of the building, including the conditions for that transfer be submitted with or prior to the submission of -- for final approval. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Ms. Hirsch. Mr. May? COMMISSIONER MAY: I just have one question about the loading dock actually. I assume that that is a frontend-in/frontend-out and there is room to turn around inside the building or something like that. Is that how it works? MS. HIRSCH: Right. So can I have the prism back? The trucks mentioned, they will pull in here. COMMISSIONER MAY: Pull in, right. MS. HIRSCH: And then they back out. They back this way in and then they come out this way. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. And it's all -- I mean, that whole thing that's called loading dock is enclosed? MS. HIRSCH: Yes. Well, enclosed? COMMISSIONER MAY: There is a roof over it? MS. HIRSCH: No, there won't be a roof over it. COMMISSIONER MAY: It's just a yard? MS. HIRSCH: Yes. COMMISSIONER WHITE: But you won't see it from the street. COMMISSIONER MAY: No. MS. HIRSCH: It's very difficult to see. COMMISSIONER MAY: No, but you will be able to see it from the rooms and things like that. MS. HIRSCH: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER MAY: So I was just curious about what it was, because it wasn't clear from the drawing. And I assume that they are doing whatever they need. It's 17 feet wide. It's not quite two-way traffic for trucks, so I assume that they are doing what they need to to make sure that you don't have trucks coming together and having to back out one way or another. It's all about backing trucks in and out, but we want to avoid, so that's all I wanted to comment on. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Could I make a general comment first? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Please. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: So as Jennifer was careful to point out, we are -- since this submission was put in, we have made considerable advances in design development, so you are seeing an old one. That's not necessarily germane to the driveway plan, but just overall. And specifically with the annex design, we are -- and we will be checking in with the design team at 50 percent and 65 percent. A little bit unusual because of the timing of the next submission, which we hope will be in September. And one word on the signage. This has been the subject of much debate. So what we have elected to do is wait, and to your point earlier, Bradley, about a holistic look, there is a lot going on on the site and a lot that the signage has to do and several different audiences and users. So we are -- the views that you have seen are indicators. We also see the signage as a very important part of the architectural design of the building and demarcations of its various identities. So we are looking at it all at once. So it has been -- people have gotten really worked up over this subject and we just want everyone to just recognize we are working on it as a whole package and it will-- you will see it in toto as part of the final submission. And then the last is the 11th Street right-of-way and the transfer is -- we are actively engaged with the Park Service and working diligently to see that that is done on time, as in before September we hope. And that's all I have to say about that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Appreciate your comments about the signage. That was of course one of the things that we wanted to ask about. It looks very -- for a "Trump" property, it is very low-key and subdued and less commercial than we had thought. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: I'm so not touching that. You know that. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: So I know that was not accidental. An example, some of the signage at the street level, I think, is exactly the right message. Our question was about handicapped access. It appeared that there was a prominent ramp on the south side on the plaza, but couldn't see handicapped access. Is it street level on the 11th Street and 12th Street sides? MS. HIRSCH: There is one right here on 11th Street. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. And what about Pennsylvania Avenue? It appears that the street furniture there constricts the entrance a little bit. Is there a handicap access on that side of the building? MS. HIRSCH: There is no handicap access on that side of the building now. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: No requirement to -- MS. HIRSCH: At this point. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- add that to that? MS. HIRSCH: I don't -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I would be -- MS. HIRSCH: Hany, would you like to -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- surprised if that was not -- MS. HIRSCH: -- address your -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- the case. MS. HIRSCH: -- constituency here? Hany is from the project architect. I don't think there is the possibility on Pennsylvania Avenue. MR. HASSAN: Good afternoon. My name is Hany Hassan. I'm the architect principal with Beyer Blinder Belle responsible for this project. First, I appreciate the positive comments that were made earlier. With respect to the importance and the sensitivity of this building and the historic and architectural character of it, particularly on Pennsylvania Avenue where there is multiple sets of steps that rises up to the main level, we felt that any introduction to ramps or anything of this sort will impact the architectural character and the historic nature of this building and the importance of Pennsylvania Avenue. So we elected to maintain the access ramp, which is existing today to the lower level on the 11th Street. So to be accessible, we felt that this is sufficient to enter the building at that level. Thank you. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Help us again to understand better the signalization and the new crosswalks. Where are they located on the plan? MS. HIRSCH: Here is the location of the new crosswalk. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Yes. MS. HIRSCH: We don't have the details yet of the signalization. That is still to be developed. This is only -- you have to remember, this is preliminary review. The signalization will come in subsequent review cycles. We don't have -- they will be working with the District Department of Transportation on that. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: All right. That's all the questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Okay. Anyone else? Ms. White? COMMISSIONER WHITE: Sorry, can I ask a further question of the architect with respect to the handicap ramps? On the 11th Street side, the handicap ramp that comes into the building, what are they entering into inside the building? Does it go into the main lobby, so they get the same experience as if they were coming in on Pennsylvania? I'm just trying to understand what their experience is like entering the building. MR. HASSAN: They enter at the lower level, what we consider the lower level. It's sort of equivalent to first floor. There is a major stair that goes up to the main level, which is also accessible to that level and it's all accessible to elevators throughout the building on both sides, two banks of elevators on the east and west. COMMISSIONER WHITE: And is it more of a public entrance or is it sort of a backstage entrance? MR. HASSAN: No. It's a -- COMMISSIONER WHITE: Okay. So it will be a grand -- MR. HASSAN: Absolutely. It's -- COMMISSIONER WHITE: Okay. MR. HASSAN: -- a public entrance. And it is interesting when you go to the site to 11th Street that slide ramp, I mean, refer to it as a ramp. It's a very slight incline and it's very gracious and very approachable. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Thank you. MR. HASSAN: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Miller? COMMISSIONER MILLER: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to comment that this is a very exciting project that will do a lot to activate Pennsylvania Avenue and the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue, in particular. One of the activities that currently though is that the project is -- that is at the site is, which unfortunately has to be eliminated, the bike tour business, which gets a lot of business. But I understand why it is -- why that has to happen. But is there any, at this stage, discussion on where in the C Street Plaza or elsewhere there would be bike racks or Capital Bikeshare facility or is it too preliminary at this point? MS. HIRSCH: It's still very preliminary, but I know that DDOT is working with GSA and Trump in trying to identify where the bike racks will be adjacent to the site. COMMISSIONER MILLER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much, Ms. Hirsch. The EDR is before you. Is there a motion on the EDR? PARTICIPANT: So moved. PARTICIPANT: Motion. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: It has been moved and seconded that the EDR be passed as presented. All in favor of the motion say aye. ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no? It has passed and as noted, this is preliminary. We still have a ways to go and we look forward to more work on this project. Item 5C is the Phase 2 of the South Campus, Centrum, at the Intelligence Community Campus in Bethesda. We have Mr. Dettman. Welcome back. MR. DETTMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: I will also note that we have two speakers signed up representing organizations, so they will be afforded five minutes each, but, Mr. Dettman, you're on. MR. DETTMAN: Thank you. And good afternoon. Staff will be presenting today the final second building plans for, as the Chairman indicated, the Intelligence Community Campus-Bethesda, South Campus, Centrum Project. You will recall that the Commission reviewed and approved the preliminary second building plans back in May of this year. You know full well by now that the 30-acre campus is located in Bethesda, Maryland. It is, approximately, three-quarters of a mile from the District line. It's a quarter mile east of the Potomac River, which is located to the west. Between the site and the Potomac River is National Park Service land consisting of fairly steeply-sloping land going down to MacArthur Boulevard, the Clara Barton Parkway and the C & O Canal National Historic Park. Here is another aerial photo looking west towards the Potomac River with a diagram down in the lower left where you can see the, you know, vertical differential between the site and the Potomac River, which is, approximately, as I said it was, a quarter mile. And over that quarter mile distance about a drop of about 150 vertical feet. So on the west is the Park Service land. On the north is a local park as well as a private school. And in the -- on the east across Sangamore Road is a fairly large commercial retail plaza. And then surrounding the area is primarily moderate-density residential consisting of the majority of single-family detached homes with some multi-family residential dispersed throughout to the east. You know that the ICC-B is being redeveloped for purposes of serving the Intelligence Community and it is currently guided by a master plan that was approved by the Commission in 2012. It splits the campus into two redevelopment halves, the North Campus Improvements and the South Campus Improvements. The North Campus Improvements are currently under construction and the South Campus is currently getting underway with this first project with the Centrum Project. The Centrum Project is a critical piece to the transformation of the South Campus because it is intended to kind of serve as the heart of the South Campus in terms of the functional circulation and tying together these disparate poorly connected buildings as well as the mechanical core of the whole South Campus through shared mechanical systems. So here we are looking at the site plan of the Centrum Building Project which is outlined in red. It's about 130,000 square foot limits of disturbance, which is currently about 80 percent impervious. The Centrum Building itself has a footprint of about 41,000 square feet and it will be spaced out along four levels, including a basement totalling about 225,000 square feet. Again, it's going to serve as the main circulation plan for the entire South Campus and consistent office space for about 350 employees. In terms of the building amenities, it does contain the design -- the final design contains, approximately, a 3,600 square foot green roof, which is located along the west side of the building above the loading dock. It has a 20,000 gallon cistern for the capture of rain water from the main Centrum building roof, which is located at the basement of the building. In terms of site improvements, four plazas are being proposed. There is a main entry plaza that connects the visitor control facility to the main entrance on the north side of the Centrum. There is a ceremonial entry plaza on the south side of the Centrum which will tie into the existing historic landscape on the east side of Erskine Hall. There is an assembly court on the west side, which can be used for -- by the employees during lunchtime or whatever or graduation ceremonies to -- that is tied in with the educational component of the intended program. And then there was a wellness garden, a secured wellness garden on the north side of Roberdeau, which I'll discuss in a moment. Finally, there are some micro-bioretention areas for the handling of stormwater located on the east side of the Centrum. Here is looking at a rendering of the Centrum. You can start to take a look at the height, massing and bulk of the building. The exterior of the Centrum is still intended to be clad in three different types of materials. There is a locally-quarried slate material for the base. There is a combination of curtain -- glass curtain wall as well as an aluminum panel system that has windows integrated in with it. The height of the Centrum is about 60 feet above-grade or 72 feet to the height of the penthouse, which is still about 20 feet below the highest building on the site, which is Erskine Hall down on the south end. And so what -- this is the -- what I'll do is focus now quickly on the applicant's response to the Commission's preliminary report, which again was in May 2013. At that time, the Commission approved the preliminary report and made a series of requests for the applicant to go back and more fully analyze some particular site and building plan modifications, including looking at refining the height and massing setbacks of the penthouses, looking at the surface area and the depth of the green roof, considering the expansion and the capacity of the cistern, expansion of the micro-bioretention areas, to eliminate the wellness garden and especially the anti-climb fence that secured that area and then finally to look at the use of permeable pavements throughout all pedestrian pathways, courtyards and plazas. The Commission also requested a series of information which the applicant has provided to staff in the final submission. The first one was responses to the Commission's recommended modifications and updated stormwater management plan consisting of updated calculations pertaining to federal and state stormwater requirement compliance, responses to the Maryland -- Montgomery County Planning Board review which we have received and was provided to you today as well as the applicant's response to those comments. And finally, a campus-wide Stormwater Management Plan which the Commission wanted in order to review individual site and building plans. Finally, the Commission encouraged the applicant to finalize the Memorandum of Understanding being worked on between Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Park Service to address historic off-site sedimentation erosion damage to Park Service land during the previous occupancy of the site. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Just a quick question. It has been the case and it continues to be the case that the stormwater management continues to not just meet, but exceed requirements. MR. DETTMAN: That's correct. I'll show you some numbers. Actually, I'll show you the numbers from the preliminary and then I'll show you how those numbers actually change as a result of some reductions in impervious surface. With regard to analyzing the height, mass and setbacks of the penthouses, the applicant took a close look at that and was able to make some changes, which reduces the overall massing of the penthouse structures and the number. The applicant was able to eliminate a proposed stair tower on the north wing of the Centrum and replace that with just a roof access hatch that will sit below the building parapet wall. They also looked at the two main penthouse structures and were able to shrink the footprint a bit in order to again reduce the overall massing of those structures. With regard to the setbacks because of the narrowness of the Centrum spine and the interior circulation, the north/south circulation, essentially, the building core or the vertical circulation through the building has to either reside on one side or the other that made circulations fine. And so it does, it remains along the west side of the building up against these exterior walls. But again, their height is only about 12 feet high and given the vertical separation and the horizontal distance to the Potomac River and the National Park Service land, adverse views of those penthouse structures were not intended at preliminary. They are not intended now. With regard to looking at the design and the retention capacity of the green roof, the applicant continues to propose a 3,600 square foot green roof over the loading dock. They did look at whether or not a vertical expansion in order to increase its storage capacity was possible because of cost constraints and the structural constraints of the roof of the loading dock, that was not feasible. In addition for the same reasons, cost and the structural capacity of the Centrum roof and project constraints, the applicant is not able to expand the green roof over to the main building roof. However, as I noted, the 20,000 gallon cistern in the basement of the Centrum is designed to capture water from the main roof and use it in the mechanical systems. With regard to the cistern remains 20,000 gallons. The applicant did contemplate a larger greywater system, but, however, because of the space constraints inside the basement level, which you see here, the basement level is not only just building systems, there is some tenant -- there is some program space down there. There are some other buildings to support. So outlined in red is essentially the Central Mechanical Plant, which has been dedicated -- that space has been dedicated for the utility areas of the building. And again, the Central Utility Plant is going to serve all of the buildings throughout the entire South Campus, so space is fairly constrained. And so they have room for a 20,000 gallon cistern. In addition, they do have a projected greywater demand in order to feed the cooling towers and the other mechanical needs for the building and 20,000 gallons is that right capacity. Anything in excess is, essentially, just capturing water for the sake of capturing water and eventually would make it into off-site or into a municipal stormwater system anyway. Another consideration was the life cycle cost and the extended payback period of doing a larger greywater system or a larger cistern. The applicant has indicated though that it does intend to continue to evaluate the opportunity for additional cisterns or and even green roofs on the remainder of the South Campus build-out. Looking at the wellness garden and the anti-climb fence, the applicant did agree with the Commission on its elimination and instead looking at incorporating that type of programmatic element with -- throughout the entire landscape of the South Campus. And so the wellness garden and the anti-climb fence has been removed. The wellness garden -- the removal of the wellness garden equates to, approximately, a reduction of about 5,800 square feet of impervious surface. And it turns that area into more porous or just a garden-type area. On the North Plaza, the plaza area has been reduced by about 3,400 square feet. They took a close look at that and were able to make those adjustments. And so again, a further reduction in the amount of impervious surface. As well as down at the ceremonial entry court, the applicant reduced the amount of paving there by about 5,300 square feet. So in total, there is about another reduction of about 14,500 square feet of impervious surface. In addition to that, the applicant intends on any kind of paving that they do have is going to be an impervious paver with porous sand-swept joints in between the pavers, so that will help with some additional infiltration. Regarding stormwater management, the project continues to not only meet, but exceed the state and federal regulations. Under the MDE Regulations, this is considered a redevelopment project and the applicant is exceeding the requirements through accommodation of impervious surface reduction and environmental site design. At preliminary, the proposal was looking at about a 12 percent reduction in impervious surface and this doesn't include the additional 14,500 square feet of impervious surface reduction that they identify between preliminary and final. They are relying upon the green roof and the micro-bioretention for achieving or exceeding its required retention bond. So you can see at the bottom of this graph here, the amount that they are required, given the limits of disturbance of this project, they are required to store -- at the preliminary level they are required to store about 3,000 cubic feet of water. And they are retaining about 4,500 cubic feet of water. And with that additional reduction of impervious surface, it lowers the amount that they have to retain. And so the amount that they exceed these requirements is even greater. And the same goes for the federal requirements under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act or EISA 2007, which under those regulations they are required to retain the 95th percentile rainfall event. Using a complex hydrologic model called the TR-55 method, it turns out that they are required under the federal regulations to hold onto about 7,000 cubic feet of water. And so when you throw in the 20,000 gallon cistern and factor in the additional reductions in impervious surface, they are holding on to about 7,200 cubic feet of water, so again they are exceeding the federal requirements. A couple other outstanding stormwater-related issues. I'll give you an update on the Memorandum of Intent which is now being called -- it was an MOU at the preliminary stage. The applicant continues to make progress and is very, very close to finalizing this agreement with the National Park Service. A final draft was provided by DIA to the National Park Service on June 20th and is currently undergoing review by the Park Service. Applicant informed staff yesterday that the affected National Park Service units, being the George Washington Memorial Parkway and the Clara Barton Parkway, have reviewed the language of the final draft and are happy with it. It has been forwarded to the solicitor's office and the regional office of the Park Service and it is being reviewed at that level right now. I mentioned that the applicant did provide staff with a campus-wide Stormwater Management Plan which addresses state and federal stormwater compliance and that it calculates out how much they need to retain at the state and federal level on the entire campus. It identifies sustainable Stormwater Best Management Practices not only just for the remainder of the South Campus, it does go up to the North Campus and identifies some areas along the intended -- the realigned access road. And that the applicant intends to further develop this concept. It is right now at about the 15 percent level. It identifies some opportunities and it looks at what can be -- what is possible. They intend on further developing this concept to about a 35 percent level. The additional details will come at the site-specific level when they get into further design of the landscape and of the other tasks under this redevelopment scenario. And then finally, between preliminary and final, the applicant did present to the Maryland County -- Montgomery County Planning Board. The Planning Board did provide comments which were provided to you. And the applicant also provided responses to those comments. In general, the Planning Board agreed with the Commission's preliminary report and commended the applicant on its continued efforts to resolve issues with the community, especially with regard to stormwater, it's overall South Campus design concept and the preparation of a campus stormwater -- campus-wide Stormwater Management Plan. It did make a few recommendations in regard to the pattern that -- the final patterning of the Centrum facade. As you recall, the orange aluminum paneling was initially designed according to kind of a pattern of Birch trees, which are not native to this area. The Planning Board and the MNCPPC staff wanted to see the patterning to more reflect the native tree pattern and the applicant has indicated in its response that it will do that in final. They wanted to make sure to reduce the visibility of the mechanical penthouses which I have described that they have, begin developing the overall campus landscape as early as possible, staff, MNCPPC staff has had some early discussions with the applicant and we are going to start consulting on the site-wide landscape treatments very, very soon. They wanted to continue engaging with the National Park Service, which they are, design the curtain wall to reduce glare and visibility. They will do that. And I won't go through all of them. The green roof and the cistern capacity, I have already touched upon and the permeable pavements. And finally to add the South Campus architectural details in the North Campus which the applicant has indicated to not only this Commission, but the Maryland -- Montgomery County Planning Board that they will. And so with that, it is the Executive Director's recommendation that the Commission approve the final second building plans for the ICC-B Phase 2 Centrum Project, to note that the applicant continues to work with interested and affected federal and state agencies, interested community stakeholders, to address off-site stormwater erosion and sedimentation damage caused by the previous occupancy of the site and to note that the DIA and NPS are finalizing an MOI to address preexisting off-site erosion issues on adjacent Park Service property. And with that, that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Dettman. Before we go to our two public commenters, are there any burning questions that you want to get out right now? If not, we can hold them. I don't know if there is anything pressing. Let's go to public comment. And we have two speakers who have five minutes each. The first is Dr. Zeizel with the Community Stormwater Committee. Welcome back. DR. ZEIZEL: Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you again. Just to refresh some of your memories, I do have a background in 30 years with HUD and FEMA in water resource planning and management. And for the Planning Commission, I actually spent five years working with the Northeastern Illinois Metropolitan Area Planning Commission in floodwater resources planning and management. I and 12 others have been working with the group through the Stormwater Management Committee to work with the ICC-B staff and your staff. And we have seen quite a bit of beneficial progress from this cooperation. Most of this progress, however, has been planning to repair the damage that has been done to the Park Service land, the C & O Canal and the Potomac Watershed. But now we see the planning really moving toward the prevention side of future damages and future losses. And I think here it requires in this approach that we use more non-structural type of practices to retain, to infiltrate and to use more biotreatment on site. The use of these stormwater, some people call them new, but they have been around for maybe 20 years, are required by federal, state and local laws. And they are -- and this, I think, requires more cooperation between everyone involved, because it is a new and somewhat complex approach. The water -- the Stormwater Management Group/Committee does support fully the -- your approval of the Centrum site. We think it is a significant step toward improvement of not only the site itself, but the surrounding community. From a stormwater management perspective, the planned use of the environmental site design techniques in this small area is quite commendable. But the problem that we are beginning to see is that the knowledge and so forth that was demonstrated in this planning and application really needs to be better applied, if you will, to the broader site itself. As we move towards prevention, the stormwater management techniques, these are more -- even more important. Our review of the Stormwater Management Concept Plan, which has been submitted to you, shows that the evaluation of the potential use of the environmental site design methods are, in general, somewhat inadequate at this point. I think the point that Shane made and I think appropriate we just found out is a 15 percent plan. It is a concept plan and will be improved as we move forward. But at this point, there is not really -- we don't really see a serious effort to fully evaluate the potential for infiltration of water and particularly to do this, you have to have soil borings. And the first cut of the concept plan does not even address the need and almost requirement for soil borings to determine the infiltration areas. Maryland law and regulations require, and I'll quote from here, "all reasonable opportunities for using environmental site design planning techniques and treatment practices be exhausted before a structural press management practice is implemented." All -- the emphasis there is not only to quantitatively reduce the outflow, saving money, but also to do and retain most of the water on-site and treat it on-site. And our -- so we urge that your NCPC staff review the concept plan very closely to see that it really fully meets the intent and the -- really the law of the state and local governments. Again, the emphasis there is on the non-structural approach. The core sort of traditionally uses structural approaches. If you use a non-structural, you do reduce cost and are more efficient. I think we also have to mention something toward this community cooperation aspect of the plan. Your Commission has noted and it commended the groups for working with the local communities and to a large extent this is true. Cooperation has resulted in major progress, I think. However, there is some aspects of cooperation always that could be improved. And we find in working with the ICC-B staff that we are given reports when they are final. We are not substantially involved with the design of reports. We are not substantially given the opportunity to comment on conduct of the -- of a lot of the work. And we see a fait accompli when we are given the reports with limited time to comment. So basically, our -- also one of the problems that is -- well, here is an example. For example, in your EDR report, the reports tend to say how great this community cooperation is. They cite 16 document availability reports, but all these things are usually just giving us the opportunity to review a report. It is not giving any opportunity to really have a substantive input with ICC-B management. So there -- it is not really true cooperation. In my work over the years with HUD and with FEMA, I have managed many, many multi-million dollar projects where they substantially involve the stakeholders. I have -- we have -- I can speak professionally that this is absolutely necessary, I think, for better conduct of these kinds of research and this kind of work and that the final product is always improved. There is a substantial input by the stakeholders. Now sometimes as we all know, it is very, very contentious and, in fact, quite better at times. But, in fact, it is usually to provide a better product. So in this case -- now, we have seen very recently, I would say -- CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Wrap-up, please. DR. ZEIZEL: -- improvement. Okay. So basically, our -- we request the Commission staff direct their staff -- we have seen this lessening almost at a drop the cancellation of talk with your staff on this for some reason, very recent. We request that your Commission direct your own staff to restore improved communication with our Stormwater Management Committee and encourage the ICC-B staff to increase and improve their interaction with the Committee Stormwater Management Committee. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you, Dr. Zeizel very much. Thank you. The second and last is David Berg with the Brookmont Civic League. Welcome back. MR. BERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to testify in favor of the Centrum project and to offer some additional comments. This project will lead the way for the ICC-B to become an attractive and functional addition to our corner in the D.C. area. The Centrum's planned stormwater facilities are by far the best to date at the overall ICC-B site. And I could elaborate on that, if you would like, but that's very important as it's the first time we are seeing ESD used on a site. Further, Admiral Manzelmann repeatedly assured the community that no trees will be cut down during this project. However, the EDR failed to mention this commitment. I ask that NCPC ascertain whether this is still DIA's intention. We are concerned about the conceptual campus-wide Stormwater Management Plan. I want to reiterate Art's comments about that and ask that NCPC take a very close look at it. The EDR notes on page 3, but without comment, that NCPC received this "plan showing ESD opportunities and potential capacities in the North and South Campuses and documentation prepared in accordance with EPA's guidance addressing compliance with EISA." Several members of the committee-- community Stormwater Committee read this document and we questioned the characterization in the EDR. The plan is early in its development and it is hardly complete. We will provide detailed comments to the team on what we have seen and engage with the ICC-B Team as the plan evolves. We encourage NCPC to examine the plan closely before you accept it. I want to note that initial discussions with the ICC-B staff have been informative and positive. Those are very recent conversations. So some early concerns. MDE and EISA require project sponsors to restore predevelopment conditions and/or use ESD to the MEP, maximum extent practicable. The focus in this plan, however, appears to be compliance with these requirements at the lowest possible cost regardless of the opportunities for ESD, regardless of predevelopment conditions and literally without impacts on communities to the south of the site. In these times of sequester, cost efficiency is essential. However, the plan proposes to increase the area of the site discharging to the county storm sewer by 150 percent from 13 percent to 30 percent reducing stormwater discharges to the mid-site stream and saving money by scrimping on ESD. All it says without increasing storm flows. While this may be possible, we can't see its realization in the conceptual plan, not yet anyway. It is worrisome that the plan failed to describe and discuss the capacity of the county storm sewer system and it does not even propose a capacity study. We requested a capacity study nearly two years ago. One should have been done more than a decade ago when they first started discharging to the county storm sewer system, but we have not seen one. Without such a plan, the overall plan for stormwater on this site has no foundation in reality. Importantly, the plan fails to mention where overflows will go when larger storms exceed the systems on-campus capacity. The answer is overflow -- it appears to be that overflows leaving the site will go to the nearest inlet of the storm sewer just down the street. What will happen to the community then? Previous site documents concluded that little active erosion exists in the mid-site stream. That makes sense as the core years ago shifted stormwater from the mid-site stream to the north stream causing damage. The ICC-B Team did decline our suggestion to restore some of these flows to the mid-site stream to protect the north stream, but now it proposes to reduce the flows there even further. The plan does not state what is to be gained other than perhaps a lower cost Stormwater Management Plan from more shifts of stormwater, the risks to the community are clear. However strangely, the EDR takes an optimistic, if an accurate, view of the plan saying that the project team will explore this, that and the other even though the plan itself is clear and stating the opposite. For example, there will be no green roof on Erskine Hall. This plan says that unfavorable cost benefit. There will be no cistern added in Erskine Hall, the reason unfavorable cost benefit. More micro-bioretention areas for the Centrum Project area, but they won't fit and they are not in the Centrum Stormwater Plan. And contrary to the EDR, the plan does not express intent to add any ESD in the North Campus. The EDR comments favorably on page 19 about the planned use in the Centrum Project of ESD strategies and notes the added benefits of these strategies. We agree the campus-wide plan, however, fails so far to anticipate using ESD strategies to the maximum extent practicable as required. So the Centrum Project is going to use ESD on its three acres, but the entire campus is close to 30. No ESD is approved for the 12 plus acre North Campus and little ESD is proposed outside the Centrum Project footprint on the South Campus. With no intentions in the conceptual plan to do infiltration studies on most of the ICC-B site, the plan simply cannot conclude that the MEP requirement is going to be met. These points should adequately illustrate the basis. Just to conclude, again, I reiterate our community support for the Centrum Project. It is really -- it looks good and we are optimistic. We urge NCPC to pay very close attention to the site-wide Stormwater Conceptual Plan. So three very specific requests: (1) That DIA reaffirm that no trees will be lost to the Centrum Project. (2) Encourage the project team to use ESD to the MEP as required. (3) Examine closely the consensual -- conceptual campus-wide plan before you approve it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much. We will return the discussion to the Commission. Questions or comments from Commission Members on the EDR? Mr. Hart? COMMISSIONER HART: In the past, I have voiced a number of concerns about stormwater management, forest conservation and I think we have moved in the right direction as we move forward with this campus plan. I would reiterate my interest in seeing campus-wide addressing both of those issues. And so as we move forward, I would like to see in the landscape plan addressing forest conservation as well as the last speaker was pointing out, campus-wide treatment for stormwater management that uses environmental site design. But I think this is moving in the right direction overall. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. May? COMMISSIONER MAY: Thank you. I would agree with Commissioner Hart with regard to the future development plan, I mean, and also with the progress that has been made on the plan already. I think it has come a long way and the projects are improved, in the project review stage as a result, but further use of environmental site design is certainly well worth the additional effort in future stages of the development program. I do want to thank the -- all the neighbors, Dr. Zeizel and Mr. Berg, especially, for their diligence in making sure that the project is executed in the best possible way and that they watch closely what is -- what the applicant is doing with the project. And I am actually interested in hearing whether there is any sort of response that we could get from the Corps of Engineers to -- from DIA with regard to the points that were made by the speakers. So is there anybody here to speak to those? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Do you want to hear from the Corps? MR. BOURGEOIS: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Bobby Bourgeois, the on-site DIA Project Manager for the program. I'm Mr. Manzelmann's on-site representative. What specific comments? I mean, rather than trying to -- COMMISSIONER MAY: Well, just the three at the very end. So requesting the DIA to reaffirm that no trees will be lost in the Centrum Project, that's one. Two, encourage the project team to use ESD to the MEP. And three, examine closely the conceptual campus-wide Stormwater Management before you approve it. Well, that is really on us. But if you want to speak to the campus-wide Stormwater Management Plan and now strong you think it is, this is your opportunity. MR. BOURGEOIS: The campus Stormwater Management Plan, as Mr. Dettman alluded, is at a 15 percent design level, much of what Mr. Berg and Mr. Zeizel mentioned, Dr. Zeizel mentioned, are valid points. A lot of those points will be picked up as we proceed with the design, as we proceed through 35, 65 and 95 percent design. Borings, it is our intent understanding the Commission, MDEs, the communities, interest in providing it, more infiltration on-site. It is our intent to proceed with borings at the 35 percent design. We are currently working with the Corps of Engineers and URS to contract that 35 percent design now, so we can proceed with that over the summer and the fall. So the concerns voiced by Mr. Berg and Dr. Zeizel are valid concerns. They will be picked up, but I think, at this point of the level of design, we don't have answers to those questions now, but we will continue to evaluate them. Regarding ESDs on the remainder of campus, that is something else that we will look at as we proceed with this design. The engineers at the time took a look at the existing site plan, the proposed site plan and tried to quantify it, tried to show that there is sufficient room and there is sufficient -- that with the room on campus, with the location of the facilities, they can provide stormwater management facilities to meet MDE and EISA 438 requirements. As opportunities present themselves as we proceed with the design, we will exceed those requirements to the extent that we can. COMMISSIONER MAY: The first one was the commitment on trees. MR. BOURGEOIS: Trees. Included with the RFP to Whiting-Turner and their subcontractors, we included Mr. Manzelmann's commitment letters to the community dated both January and June of 2012. The January commitment letter indicates his commitment to the community to not remove any additional forested area on-site. Working with the community, some forested area was removed on North Campus to accommodate the parking garage, but Whiting-Turner understands Mr. Manzelmann's commitment. They are bound by contract to honor Mr. Manzelmann's commitment to the community. So there is no intent. We will maintain the current curb lines or move them in to the extent possible on South Campus. They are ornamental trees. There are large ornamental trees on-campus that we have to look at. Small ornamental trees will be removed. If a large ornamental tree, and there is a 32 inch tree to the west of the Centrum, if that needs to be removed, we are going to work with the community before doing that. But Mr. Manzelmann as recently as Monday made his point through myself and Mr. Ayala to Whiting-Turner, URS and the Corps of Engineers that we are going to do everything possible to protect the larger trees on-site. So the forested area, we are not touching forested area. Ornamental trees, yes, and other ornamental-type trees on-campus we will remove, but I think that is consistent with the commitment Mr. Manzelmann made in January of 2012, sir. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I echo the words of some of the other Commissioners about the spectacular progress that has been made in multiple areas. One was the 25 percent -- nearly 25 percent reduction in impervious surfaces, I think is commendable. The stormwater management clearly that effort continues. I think the remediation of adjacent Park Service land outside the boundaries of this site is remarkable and perhaps even unprecedented. The facade pattern accommodations, the shrinking of the penthouses and the relocation farther to the west, the submission of the MOA with the Park Service that will guide the future interactions, I think, is also commendable. When the Corps has said no, I'm sorry, we are unable to do things, they have done the due diligence, the life cycle cost analysis, the cost benefits, examined payback periods and so forth. It's my understanding according to the EDR what we are approving today is just for the Centrum portion of the Phase 2 on the South Campus that we will get a chance to see this project again. The work that is going to be done on Roberdeau and Erskine facades as well as final landscaping, so we will see at least one or two more presentations. MR. DETTMAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. All right. So I think we are headed in the right direction and the communication was a key measure. Involvement of stakeholders in the development of plans, I think, is also a good recommendation and I would encourage the Corps to follow through on it and make a commitment in that area. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much. Anyone else with questions or comments on the EDR that is before you? Hearing none, is there a motion on the EDR? PARTICIPANT: Moved. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: It has been moved and? PARTICIPANT: Second. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Seconded. The EDR -- all in favor of the EDR as presented say aye. ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Dettman. We have one more action item before two information items. Agenda Item No. 5D is the Millennium Project at Arlington National Cemetery and we have Mr. Hart. MR. HART: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. The Department of the Army has submitted preliminary and final site and building plans for the Millennium Project, which is located in Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington County, Virginia. Here we have Arlington National Cemetery and with the surrounding context. As a refresher, I last presented this project in April and at a concept level and at the time, I noted that Congress became concerned a number of years ago that ANC were onto National Cemetery would cease being an active cemetery and they passed laws to extend the life of ANC through expansion on nearby lands. The millennium property was one of these sites shown here in the upper left portion of the Arlington National Cemetery. The other site was the former Navy Annex site and that is shown in the bottom of the south portion of the slide. And the Navy Annex will be submitted to NCPC for review in the future. So here is the site which you remember is comprised of land from both Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, also the National Park Service as well as an existing maintenance yard at ANC. The Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall portion is generally a grassy area with some trees while the land from the National Park Service, which was part of the Arlington House property, is generally wooded. To refresh your memory, there are moderate to severe slopes on either side of the perennial stream. The stream is shown here in blue which runs through the site. The current condition of the stream bank is poor as previous storm events have caused moderate to severe erosion over time. A stream restoration project is included in this project as well and this is to bring the stream bed up to the level of the flood plain which I'll note in an upcoming slide. Also, again as a refresher, here are a few images of the site. The image on the upper left is the boundary wall, which is shown here, there. There is a portion of this that actually has some invasives growing on it. And this boundary wall, the 1,300 foot length of this wall will be removed as part of this project and this is because of grade changes that are occurring and also the wall is somewhat dilapidated in its current condition. The image on the right shows the steep erosion of the perennial stream that I mentioned earlier. This erosion problem was due to the -- was due to water coming actually down from the Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall site, but that situation has been corrected and that water is not flowing down any more. And the bottom image is showing the existing ANC maintenance area and it is looking toward the south. And this would be-- the general location is where the road is going to be located in the project. So back in April, the Army submitted this concept design. It included several columbaria areas, also in-ground interment sites, a new perimeter wall, a loop road as well as stream restoration. It consisted of 29,922 burial sites for both inurnment and interment burials. And this is what is now being proposed. The main change and I'll flip back to the concept proposal, the final site. The main change being the removal of one of the columbaria due to budgetary constraints. The ANC will replace this columbarium with trees and landscaping to increase the buffer with the National Park Service property, which is to the east, which is actually down in this slide. The final plan includes space for 27,242 burial sites. The ANC is including over 16,000 niches in their design and I'll go through some of the elements to kind of point them out on the map. The 16,000 niches are -- is a decrease of 1,500 niches from the previous design due to the loss of the one columbaria. This columbaria here is shown all in red and then the niche wall is included in that as well. There are also in-ground burial areas and these are shown in the yellow. The in-ground burial areas are for both cremations as well as crypts for coffins. Finally, there are other improvements that are being proposed as well. They include the loop road that is shown here in purple, two committal shelters for services and these are shown in yellow. There are also several bridges that cross over the streams and a stream -- the Stream Restoration Project. There are also pathways which will lead from the roadway to the columbaria, also to the in-ground burial areas as well as the perimeter wall. These pathways will be made of a porous pavement material. The image on the upper left is showing a section of the loop road. CFA approved the final -- this final design for the entire project in April and delegated the final roadway design to CFA staff. CFA -- at the time, CFA requested that ANC explore ways to reduce the width of the roadway or to use porous pavement. After some research, ANC determined that it wasn't able to reduce the width of the roadway due to operational concerns and that the porous pavement would not work due to some maintenance concerns. ANC then decided to designate a parking area in the proposed roadway. So in the same roadway width, which would be visually separated from the proposed travel lanes, but would not involve the actual widening of the road. What is shown here in the upper left is a 6 foot concrete strip which is next to the existing asphalt travel lanes. CFA has approved this, staff has approved this change and NCPC staff supported it as well. Okay. As I showed back in April, in my April presentation, this is a section of the -- of what is being proposed. This section has not changed. There is a 60 foot grade change, as you will note, from the Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall side of the property, which is just over here to the left down to the stream bed. And as I noted before, the stream has -- was very eroded previously. And so what they are trying to do is to maintain the riparian buffer or bring the stream up to where the riparian buffer is to allow the flood plain to actually do what it is supposed to do, which is help to deal with and spread out the water during flooding events. Also, I'll note that the perimeter wall that is shown here will have niches on the Arlington National Cemetery side and on the Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall side. It will be clad in Seneca Sandstone. And this Seneca Sandstone is a reused material from the wall, the historic boundary wall that is being removed. So they are doing that. That is actually part of the mitigation which I'll talk about in an upcoming slide. The National Park Service requested that the ANC provide stormwater management for an ANC parking lot. This parking area is near the millennium site and you can see in this image here, this is the millennium site outlined in red. And the parking area is here. And what it does is actually drain down into the perennial stream. And where it is draining, it is actually eroding or has eroded out the outfall area. And so what they are doing is they are doing some work to detain some of the water up -- I'm sorry, I shouldn't say that. This is a change to the elevation. This is a higher level than it is down here. So they are detaining some of the water up here before it continues down the slope. So what is included here is 19,000 cubic feet of water or detention or storage. They are also looking at removing pavement around some of the existing trees and this area here, these areas here are the areas that they are going to be removing over the pavement that they will be removing around the trees. And as well as restoring an outfill area, this area down here, and the drainage area that continues down to the stream as well. And they are doing this by treating the water at this location up here and they are doing that through a hydrodynamic separator, which basically allows the solids to drop down into an area in the water to continue moving on. And this helps to clean the water as it is going from the paved area into the basin, into the storage and then down into the outfall and down into the perennial stream. So what did staff look at with regard to this project? The Commission comments are shown here. They are to continue to refine the design to minimize harm and provide appropriate mitigation through consultation, as required by the -- by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to refine the Visual Impact Survey in ways that are responsive to consulting parties, to do a thorough exploration of decreasing the width of the road bed in the areas at Arlington House Woods and finally, to prevent a net tree loss and I'll talk about all of these in a minute. ANC has continued to refine the design and minimize harm and provide actually appropriate mitigation through consultation. And I'll talk about the mitigation in an upcoming slide. ANC has also refined and included additional analysis in the Visual Impact Survey, that has been responsive to consulting parties. They note that the width of the road at the Arlington House Woods is needed for operational reasons and really this is about their -- the need for families that are coming for the services to be able to park. They don't really have parking areas here and the roadways are used for that need. And they need the area for the roadway to be able to do that. And ANC has also increased the tree replacement and now meets the NCPC Comp Plan policy of no net tree loss. So they conducted a Visual Impact Study looking at the site from a variety of advantage points. The image over on the left here of the map shows these points that they were kind of looking at the millennium site which is here in kind of the middle of the slide. And in April this study had not been completed and the consulting parties requested a few additional sites in these areas that are highlighted in yellow are the areas that were really included. And these were really looking from the Arlington House Woods towards the site. The images on the -- the photographs on the left or excuse me, on the right are showing views from Arlington House itself. So views from here looking down towards the site. And because of topography as well as just vegetation, there are a number of trees that are between this site and the Millennium Project. It really isn't visible from the Arlington House itself. Now, with regard to the views from Arlington House Woods, ANC has included some views. This is one of the views. I would like to note that the Arlington House Woods area does not contain any trails and doesn't have plans to do so, so this view from -- at the bottom here would not be really seen by the general public, but it is something that you need to understand what the views are, what they would look like. And while the project is visible, as you can tell in this image on the bottom, during the winter months, ANC notes these views would be consistent with and complimentary to the overall image of Arlington National Cemetery. It is a -- during the Section 106 process, they did have a determination of adverse effect on historic properties and they have done some mitigation for dealing with that. This table does show the change from the concept stage to the final stage. The number of trees to be removed has increased by 23 trees, but they also did increase the number of trees to be planted from 600 trees to 800 trees and in addition to the 800 trees, 1,600 seedlings. ANC estimates that approximately 65 percent of these seedlings would survive in the first five years. Staff feels that this exceeds the no net tree policy -- no net loss tree policy in the Comp Plan. ANC developed mitigations as part of the NEPA in Section 106 processes in conjunction with consulting parties, which included NCPC staff. The Section 106 process was completed on June 3rd of this year and the NEPA process was completed with a signed FONSI on June 5th of this year. The mitigation here is shown -- includes the documentation and reuse of the historic wall as well as that landscape in the area, the reuse of the wall material. The mitigation also includes planting of 800 trees and the 1,600 seedlings, which as I noted earlier, as well as 12,000 shrubs. They are looking at restoration of the deeply incised perennial stream area and the removal of invasives on ANC property for three years. ANC has also agreed to let local groups come on-site and remove vegetation, so if there are older trees that they like to preserve, they could take acorns or take the tree specimens themselves as well as providing for tree cross-sections from several larger trees on the site to Arlington County Government and this is for just kind of understanding what the age of the trees are. And with that, the Executive Director recommends that the Commission approve the preliminary and final site and building plans for the 27 acre Millennium Project at the Arlington National Cemetery which includes 27,242 inurnment and interment types to committal structures perimeter wall, niche spaces, loop road, stormwater management system and 1,700 linear feet of stream restoration. And the Commission also notes that the current proposal includes a refining Visual Impact Survey that is responsive to consulting parties as well as reflects the result of ongoing efforts to reduce adverse effects at the Arlington House Woods and mitigation through consultation as required by the National Historic Preservation Act. I'm not going to read the written mitigation, because I just spoke of that. It also prevents the net tree loss by increasing the number of replacement trees to 800 and adding 1,600 seedlings to the reforested area. And then finally, the Commission notes the applicant is not reducing the width of the road bed at the 145 year-old Arlington House Woods because of operational concerns. And with that, I conclude my presentation. And we have some members of Arlington National Cemetery here to answer CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Sure thing. Thank you. Mr. Hart? COMMISSIONER HART: Was there a sediment control plan included in this submission? MR. HART: Yes, they worked with the Department of Environmental -- the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality as well as the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation for stormwater as well as the Sediment Control Plan. And they can speak to that a little bit more. COMMISSIONER HART: My concern is that not only are we taking out a whole lot of mature trees, planting very small trees as replacements, but we are going to be regrading an enormous area. That disturbance is going to cause, you know, the potential for a lot of sedimentation into this perennial stream on out into the Potomac and then the Chesapeake Bay. It's, you know, one of those things that we need to be cognizant of and avoid any adverse impacts. So I was curious to know, you know, what kind of stormwater protection we're going to have after it is built, but also that during construction there be adequate sedimentation control built in to this sequence. LT. COL. FEDROFF: Sir, I'm Lieutenant Colonel Dave Fedroff from Arlington National Cemetery. That is certainly a very detailed question for me to kind of answer, but I do have some of our consultants here, I would ask if maybe they could. Tom, are you probably the best here? MR. MASSEY: I'm sure Scott could probably join me and talk a little bit about it. LT. COL. FEDROFF: I'll sort of leave that to those who have a little more expertise in the specifics to answer that. Thank you, sir. MR. MASSEY: Good afternoon. My name is Tom Massey. I'm with Jacobs. We are the architect of record for the project. Scott Petrey, if I said that correctly is with WSSI, as well-respected consultant in the Virginia area in charge of our stream restoration and I think you can report today that we have received final approval for our sediment control and other storm water facilities from the state. Is that true? MR. PETREY: Yes, we have received approval from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality for the cemetery expansion. We received the SPGP permit for that as well as the nationwide permit from the Army Corps of Engineers for the Stream Restoration Project. MR. MASSEY: So it has been a big concern of a lot of parties here because of just the points you have made earlier. And we think we have made a good move in moving that Sediment Control Plan into reality. COMMISSIONER HART: And will the-- there is an exhibit in the EDR that shows two bioretention areas and one sheet flow area. Are those the only stormwater management elements for this Millennial Park area? MR. MASSEY: Dan might be able to answer that question for me as well, if I can bring one more of my associates to the stand. Dan Deible is our landscape architect also with me from Jacobs. MR. DEIBLE: Yes, actually, I wanted just to go back. We have the permit for the Sediment Erosion Control, but it sounded like you wanted just a little bit of detail and I would just say that sediment erosion control consists of two phases. During all points of the construction project, the stream restoration is actually the first item that happens. And then as we start to expand out into the project, we use a variety of pretty much everything in the arsenal of the sediment erosion control to prevent any of that sediment to reach the stream because, you know, it has just been restored. Stormwater management does consist of those items that you mentioned. But probably the largest aspect of the stormwater management is the entire burial areas are all covered with approximately 2 feet of a very -- it's called compost amended soil. It does two things. It creates a great growing medium for the lawn that is, you know, a large maintenance site ongoing for the cemetery, but it also is very absorbent and it's actually a stormwater management measure now, newly adopted stormwater management measure in the State of Virginia. It infiltrates very effectively. In fact the entire burial area, you have the 2 feet of that soil further than in the crypt area, it's a very permeable gravel that surrounds the concrete crypt, so the water actually has to -- gets to infiltrate through approximately 8 feet of the material before it gets to a subsurface drainage system. So it slows the water down. It lets the water infiltrate into the ground. And so we feel that we have a very effective system to deal with the stormwater and mitigate any of its -- you know any extra runoff or the quality as well. COMMISSIONER HART: And that subsurface drainage system goes where? MR. DEIBLE: It eventually ties into several points where there is existing channels that go into the stream and it discharges into that channel at the bottom, you know, into the ultimate discharge from the site, which is the stream through the center. COMMISSIONER HART: Okay. Advantagement to the road areas because the roads have shrunk? MR. DEIBLE: Well, that -- the roads did shrink a little. We took as much of the road as we could and reduced the width from 30 feet to 22 feet, so there is a section of road. COMMISSIONER HART: Yes. MR. DEIBLE: And I wanted to mention that, too, because that did reduce our impervious area. But the roads are being treated by those bioswales that you see on the plan. Those are specifically to treat the impervious area on the roads. COMMISSIONER HART: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Could I ask? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Yes. Tom? COMMISSIONER WHITE: I would like to ask another question about the idea of having people come in and take the trees that were fallen and acorns. How did that idea come about and how is that going to be managed? I imagine there is enormous symbolic value in that to folks who have family members -- MR. MASSEY: Can I ask the colonel to respond? COMMISSIONER WHITE: -- there. I'm just curious. It's a really interesting idea. LT. COL. FEDROFF: Part of the mitigation that was brought to us by Arlington County primarily their forestry group with the county and they have actually already come to the site and done some collection. Really, they have been the only organization who has really pursued that. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Um-hum. LT. COL. FEDROFF: And it is -- and we are kind of giving them the opportunity because due to seasonal changes, there are some different items to collect, different times of the year. So they have already come to do some during the spring and with construction probably not starting until later this year, they -- I suspect they will want to come and do it again. And actually that is something the cemetery has done sort of on a recurring basis as has allowed that to happen. So it really wasn't that bit of a change for us. One of the other mitigations that Carlton had mentioned was they had requested for, they are calling them, cookies, but slices of the trees and I think they are going to use them, as you said, probably for some age things, but also I think they want to sort of preserve them and put them in libraries within the county as well. So it was really a very easy to agree to mitigation and just simple coordination between a few of their staff and a few of our staff to sort of work out access, but nothing out of the ordinary for what we do there. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes it just seems like a very interesting potential, too, in terms of education and, you know, people feeling a part of a very important place. Thank you. LT. COL. FEDROFF: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I wanted to compliment the team on the multiple mitigations that was covered in the presentation, reduction in the number of columbariums, the use of materials including reuse of the deteriorating portions of the wall working hard. Again, while we have not yet implemented the caliper standard, the replacement in-kind in the numbers of trees is commendable. Many of us are sensitive to that. The stormwater management including the stream restoration, those of us that are neighbors of the cemetery, including those of us at the Pentagon that are downhill, we appreciate Commissioner Hart's questions about management and runoff. The viewsheds, the analysis of the viewsheds, absolutely, I think it was highlighted. Those are absolutely consistent with the use of the site, so it's not inappropriate for the use of the -- from their elected house to see those grave sites. We want to report also that the demolition of the Navy Annex to the south, the 42 or 43 acres that will be turned over, that is proceeding well. It is on schedule. some of the aspects are head of schedule. That land straddles Columbia Pike and is adjacent to Joyce Street in collaboration with not only the cemetery, but Arlington County on the future planning and use of that site. So I think the project continues to make good progress and we are pleased to see hat. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Anything? Well, thank you very much. It's a very historic project. Sensing no further comments or questions, there is a motion and a second on the EDR. All in favor of the EDR as presented say aye. ALL: Aye. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Opposed no? Thank you. Mr. Hart, thank you very much. MR. HART: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: The last two items on the agenda are information items. Agenda Item No. 6A is an update on the Congressionally-requested height master plan study. And making his final appearance before us is Mr. Zaidain. MR. ZAIDAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. As the Chairman said, this presentation is an information presentation just to update the group on where we are in the study of the Height Act as requested by Congress. Essentially, we are wrapping up the first phase of the study and what we have accomplished to this point and then also to talk about what is coming to the Commission and the public in the next month or so. So just some background on where we are or how we got to this point. Last summer on July 19th there was a hearing before the House Committee on oversight of Government Reform. To discuss the Height Act, there were a panel of experts to testify, which included Marcel Acosta, our Executive Director, and Harriet Tregoning of the District. A follow-up to that hearing was a letter from the House Committee requesting a joint study of the Height Act and that came in October and that request was for the District of Columbia and the National Capital Planning Commission to jointly study the Height Act and essentially see if it is still working for the city and to analyze strategic changes to the Act, if appropriate. In November there are responses from the Chairman Bryant, NCPC Chairman Bryant and Mayor Gray, accepting that task and laying out some general parameters for how the study will be conducted. In this communication, there were three general principles that were established that kind of represent the foundation of the study. The first principle is to ensure the prominence of federal landmarks and monuments by preserving their views and settings. The second principle is to maintain the horizontality of the monumental city skyline. And the third principle is to minimize negative impacts to nationally significant historic resources, including the L'Enfant Plan. So we still time in this first phase discussing these principles and trying to flesh them out not only with federal and District stakeholders, but also with the public. It was a central part of our public outreach, which I'll discuss a little bit of. In terms of how the study is proceeding, the first phase, which as I said we are wrapping up, included some discussion of the study principles really trying to understand what those principles mean, really trying to understand federal and local interests. We have also done some case studies to understand how this issue of building height has been managed in other cities around the world that have similar characteristics as Washington and have faced similar development patterns. We have also concluded our first set of public meetings, which occurred at the end of May and in June and I'll talk a little bit about how that outreach has gone. The second phase which is what we are moving into consists of more of the analytical piece. There are two studies which have been underway. One is a modeling study, which is looking at the visual and physical effects of varying heights in certain areas of the city and also an economic study that has been underway. Both of these studies have been contracted by the District of Columbia and these will be presented to the Commission at its special work session on July 24th. So they are -- will be coming out. And they also will be the subject of the public meetings in August, so that we can thoroughly vet them with the public. And then the final phase, we will be developing draft recommendations which will then come to the Commission for its deliberation and then there will be a set of public hearings to gather public input on those recommendations. And then the recommendations will be voted on and transmitted to congress in the fall. So to talk a little bit about the case studies and then the full document is on the web to be downloaded, but we looked at several cities, Paris, France, Vancouver, Barcelona, London was kind of the first batch that we looked at and really the lessons here generally looked at how these cities managed building height and the context of really important assets that establish the quality of the city. So in Paris, building heights were pretty much focused -- additional building heights, I should say, were pretty much focused away from the historic core of the city and focused on the periphery of the central historic part of Paris. Vancouver took advantage of views and experiences to its natural features in molding building height. The kind of urban design framework in that example focused on preserving and enhancing views to the mountains and to the waterfront areas. Barcelona which is very similar to Paris focused it's additional building height in higher development in areas outside of its historic core, which is essentially the Gothic area. London is a very interesting example, because it focused its building height, framework on preserving and enhancing views to a specific building, which is St. Paul's Cathedral. So if you look at that case, you will see the -- the one in example provides examples where there is specific view corridors that are preserved to that civic building to preserve its prominence in the setting. And then the second batch of case studies we looked at looked at how building heights are focused on specific historic features. In Philadelphia, this is the case study of how additional building heights have changed around the historic city all and downtown Philadelphia. Madison, Wisconsin, it's framework has been focused on preserving views to the state capital and establishing what is called a Zone of Respect around that state capital to preserve its views. Hamburg, Germany and Dublin, Ireland are really good examples, because their frameworks focus on the skylines and really enhancing and establishing the prominence of certain characteristics on the skyline and Hamburg it's the church steeples. In Dublin, it is certain different features that vary around the city and the image I showed here is one of the historic churches. In St. Louis, the example there, of course, is focused no the arch and preserving building heights so that the arch remains prominent in the landscape there. So this is just a good way to get the study kicked off, so we look at best practices from other areas. We are certainly not trying to turn Washington into one of these cities specifically, it was meant to start generating ideas and discussion which it has with our stakeholders and the pub. So I'm going to kind of pitch it for Office of Public Engagement here and talk about the public outreach. Again, we have done a host of public events to really get the dialogue started about the public outreach. And I think many of the Commissioners have attended these events. On March 5th, we hosted an event at the National Archives that was attended by over 200 people. They had a panel of speakers from several international cities to talk about how building heights have been managed in their respective cities. We have established an on-line presence that is rolling and is ongoing. There is a portal where anybody can provide comments. We have received over 100 comments so far with people providing their opinions about this issue and those comments are then posted on the website, so you can get on there and read what other people have said. We also have the Twitter campaign going where people can tweet about these issues and keep a dialogue going. We have held four public meetings to vet the initial ideas and principles that have been established in Phase 1. I think the intent here is to have a public meeting in each ward. And so in this first chunk, we had meetings in three wards and then the next chunk, which is Phase 2, we will hit the remaining wards. But these were held towards the end of May and in early June. And again, these talked about the principles that were established for the study, some of the federal and local interests. We presented the information of the case studies and we also wanted to educate the public on exactly what the study is, why we are doing it and how it is being conducted. Part of those meetings as we had some comment cards, which people are allowed to jot down their thoughts. We also had an opportunity to provide -- to have a participant provide post cards from the future of what Washington skyline may look like as it evolves, given the outcome of the Height Study and these are an example of some of the drawings that we have got. Actually some pretty good drawings from the public. And then we actually got a couple of messages as well through that process. There is a document on-line through our website that has all of the raw comments from these public meetings compiled, so you are more than welcome to get on that -- and download that document and see all of the specific comments. In general, there has been a range of opinions. There certainly is no one prevailing opinion that is really the wringing out. We have heard everything from maintaining the status quo and don't change the Height Act to explore radical changes to the Height Act. So it really is a wide range of opinions that we have received to this point and I do encourage you to look at the document. In terms of themes that really kind of make the dialogue complex, we have heard themes about affordability, density, neighborhood protection, the issue of home rule is an important one about why there should even be a Federal Height Act. And then also, there has been a lot of dialogue about the Federal Height Act versus local zoning. What issues should be properly addressed in the Federal Height Act? What issues should be properly addressed in local zoning? There is a lot of concern which relates to the theme of density about things like infrastructure, capacity and transportation. So there is really a lot of really complex issues that almost go beyond just building height that have been brought up in these discussions. And we are certainly looking forward to keeping those discussions going in our continued public outreach. An additional aspect beyond just public meetings, we have been convening federal stakeholder conversations. This is really pulling together a wide range of federal representatives, facility managers, security professionals, representatives from the historic community to coming in and hep facilitate discussions on this issue. We have had two, to this point, in addition to individual meetings with federal agencies. And some of the Agency themes that we have been collecting there is obviously issues related to security and communications infrastructure, just trying to understand how this al relates. The facility operations, mission implications and then also historic, cultural and symbolic resource impacts. So just trying to get the dialogue going with the federal agencies understanding what other federal interests may be out there. And we will continue those stakeholder conversations into the next phase. So in the next phase, which is Phase 2, which will be -- the focus of these will be the economic and height studies that are becoming available towards the end of the month. There will be a special Commission meeting again on July 24th where this be presented and discussed with the Commission. And then there will be series of public meetings through the beginning of August, the dates up here, and there will be in the area of Tenleytown arranging around the city including Catholic University and then we will have one of the Office of Planning as well. So we are looking forward to getting additional public outreach and really getting into some specific discussions related to live study. And so just to kind of prep the Commission on what you are going to see on July 24th, the Height Modeling Study is structured in kind of two basic ways. The study is looking at skyline and aerial views and how various levels of building height can impact certain areas. The study is looking at three different geographic levels. One is the law L'Enfant City, which is the historic core of the city that was planned by Pierre L'Enfant. The topographic bowl, which is sort of that ridge escarpment area around the L'Enfant City and then illustrative areas, which are areas that have been identified in the District Comprehensive Plan as high- or medium-density areas and for future land use, which could be potential reasons that might be appropriate for additional growth. And then beyond that, there are street level corridor views which looks at the impacts of additional height we have on the pedestrian experience and on public space. So there are selected views from certain streets both within the L'Enfant City and out that looks at the impacts of these varying eights. So it's a good way to get the dialogue started about how change to building heights may affect important areas of the city. And then secondly is the economic feasibility study which is a technical study that looks at the costs, construction cost implications of additional height. And then the economic impact of any change in height. So these two will be on the agenda for the 24th and there will be the District and its consultants here to present and discuss that with you. Okay. So beyond July 24th, we are having additional public meetings. Again, draft recommendations to the Commission in September, which will also be followed up by public hearings. And then there are, as I said, ongoing opportunities for public input. The website is up and running and is getting a lot of hits at ncpc.gov\heightstudy. We have a direct email setup at info@ncpc.gov and then the Twitter campaign is set by the handle at #HeightDC. So that's where we are now at the conclusion of Phase 1 and we are moving into Phase 2. And again, that will be the subject of the July 24th special Commission work session. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Ms. Tregoning? COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Just a comment. I'll say something about what a pleasure it has been to work with the NCPC Commissioners, my fellow Commissioner and staff. I'm really gratified that so many people have been at public meetings and I want to call out Commission Dixon, who literally hosted us for the meeting in Ward 8 and got a great turnout for that meeting. So that was particularly good. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: And cooked for you. COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: And cooked great food I hear. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: Great food, great food. And also just to recognize David Zaidain and the work that he has done on this effort. Not surprisingly, this is both a very high profile and contentious topic. Contentious in public meetings, a little bit testy sometimes among our federal partners. And he has been a constant professional and very much a pleasure to work with. So we are going to miss him in this process. I can't believe he would bail before the report to Congress. MR. ZAIDAIN: It wasn't intentional, I promise. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: But in any event, I just wanted to acknowledge this great effort and also just to wish him well on behalf of the D.C. Office of Planning. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: Mr. Chairman, I have -- first of all thank you. It is wonderful to be a part of the Anacostia, all over the city with this effort. The one thing I have noticed about NCPC during my experiences here is that we have demonstrated the ability to do outreach to make the community feel -- be a part, not feel, be a part of our planning. I really think it is one thing that we have carried out to the other capitals around the world how we do that. And many don't do it well as we do it here. And I think this is a great opportunity to do it and it is going very well now. And I'm going to do more of attending, because I think it's fascinating. We have been dealing with this height issue for years in D.C. and now all of a sudden we're going to open it up for a real discussion. So we will see what happens. I also was hoping that even though it's summertime, I would really like to get some young kids' visions of this as a way we can reach focus groups or touch the school system or summer programs, because I'm -- because they are the ones that are going to live with this future plan or this future concept and it would be clever to see what they think of it. The other point I want to make is I believe the letter we got which started this whole thing in the presentation that was made at the Archives Building, indicated some concern for the appearance of the rooftops when you come into the cit flying in. And not everybody flies in, but there are some who do. And I thought there was some indication that some buildings could maybe be given some height adjustments to accommodate making those rooftops more functional and less air conditioning, heating and I think that as said repeatedly that when you fly in, you see these tops that look so bad. And maybe it would be one way to look at buildings where we could do something and maybe height would be appropriate, acceptable and still make the rooftops more functional and look better. I think that's it. COMMISSIONER TREGONING: I will just say that is something that we are looking at among the alternatives. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Miller? COMMISSIONER MILLER: Yes. I just wanted to echo our thanks to David Zaidain for all your excellent professional work on this plan and all the other plans and projects throughout the years. It has been a pleasure to work with you and I commend the staff on the public outreach. I would say that if meetings aren't well-attended in the month of August that maybe we should have another one for Phase 2 some time after, maybe the second week in September or something, but maybe your outreach is so good that you will keep people from taking vacation. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. May? COMMISSIONER MAY: Yeah, I would like to underscore both points, thanks to Mr. Zaidain. It has been a pleasure over the many, many years working with you going all the way back to, I think, when you were on the BZA and I was in a different job. Anyway, the -- but I am concerned. I mean, that was the one problem that I saw in the presentation is public meetings in August. And it's just such a taboo thing for us. We don't even go near that in the Park Service. It just doesn't -- it is a bad thing to have to do. And I understand why we have to do it in this circumstance. I was at another meeting on this topic that was not one that you sponsored, but it was sponsored by another organization and the cries of conspiracy started going up about this. And I tried to defend NCPC because at that time, I didn't know that you were planning meetings in August. Oh, no, they wouldn't do that, they are very sensitive about this. So anyway, if there is anything that can be done to repeat the information or do something in September to make sure that you touch the folks who would otherwise not be able to make one of the other ones. I assume the four that are happening in August are essentially the same content, right? MR. ZAIDAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAY: Right. MR. ZAIDAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAY: So if there could be a repeat in early September, I think that you would be able to quell any of that criticism. But I also think that it is -- if you do go ahead and set that out, that you make it very clear to everybody that the content will be the same in all of these things. So it's not -- you know, because some people want to go to every meeting and it may not -- it's not really necessary. Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you very much. MR. ZAIDAIN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: The last information item on our agenda is Agenda Item No. 6B and it's the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and its Momentum Plan. MR. ACOSTA: Before we begin, I have to recuse myself from this matter. I am a member of the Board of Directors of WMATA and this may be coming up. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Yes, sir. Mr. Staudigl, welcome. MR. STAUDIGL: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Today you are going to hear an information presentation from Mr. Mort Downey, one of the Federal Government's representatives to the WMATA Board. Mr. Downey is going to update you on Momentum, the Metro Strategic Plan. You previously heard a presentation on the plan last winter while it was in development. The board has since adopted Momentum and you each have a copy of it in front of you. In addition to working to bring the system to a high level of service, Metro has begun planning for the system's future. It developed a public outreach process to understand the region's priorities in which provided the themes for Momentum. The plan has safety as its highest priority and emphasizes the importance of optimizing the current transit network and maximizing capacity. Momentum is built around four goals and they are accomplished on the plan and proposes several initiatives be implemented by 2025. And Mr. Downey is going to provide you with these details and he is going to be available for questions following his presentation. While today's presentation is just for informational purposes, WMATA does request that NCPC review the plan and consider endorsing it. As described in the WMATA compact, NCPC reviews changes to WMATA's Mass Transit Plan. And we anticipate coming before you for potential endorsement of Momentum at the September meeting. And prior to that, the staff will review Momentum for consistency with NCPC plans and policies and will make a recommendation regarding endorsement. An important point to note is that endorsement of Momentum does not imply the Commission's future approval of the plan's individual projects as they are going to come before you for review. Mr. Downey brings more than 50 years of experience in operations and management of major public transportation authorities. He has been involved with the Metro system for more than 40 years helping accrue a complete fundamental system of both Government officials and industry experts. Having previously served as the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation and as the Executive Director of the New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Mr. Downey has run and overseen efficient and accountable transit programs across the nation. Mr. Downey? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Downey, welcome. MR. DOWNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: I'm glad you are here. MR. DOWNEY: Good to be here. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Yes, sir. MR. DOWNEY: As you have heard, I'm one of the two federal appointees to the Washington Metro Board. This is actually a new configuration for the board to have federal appointees and we particularly appreciate you lending Marcel to us for probably more time than either you or he expected it would be, but he is an important contributor to the board. I'm going to move quickly through the slideshow, which we -- which describes our strategic plan and, as noted, it was issued in draft earlier this year and more recently our board has adopted it. We are adopting it has a basis to direct our future activities, both in terms of managing the system and in guiding its future growth. We put it forward to better explain what we are doing now, but also to encourage a dialogue about what we should be doing and what the region should be doing in the future to support growth, economic viability and sustainability. We want to convert this from our plan to the region's plan. There is still a lot that will have to be done to execute it over probably many decades of these specific project decisions, environmental reviews. Certainly we have to develop a funding proposal that makes it work. We will have to adopt formal amendments to the Regional Transit Plan which is our charter responsibility. We will have to conform to federal funding requirements and the like. But most importantly, what we will have to do is continue to improve and rebuild the system we have. We will not have credibility to talk about what we should do over the next 50 years if within the next two or three years we don't finish the job of fixing the system that we have. But even though there is much to be done, I am excited about the prospects. I am confident that we are making progress day-by-day. I have been on the board now a little over three years joining somewhat after the tragic Fort Totten crash in the summer of 2009. And I believe with an almost entirely new board and with a new CEO, we are making progress. So let me talk about where we are with the plan. Today we are heavily into the rebuilding of the foundation of the system, a $5 billion six-year federal local partnership for rebuilding. If you are moving around the system on weekdays or particularly on weekends, you see how much work is going on. We are literally rebuilding the system. 21 miles of new running rail, improved escalators. You may not believe it, but we are actually up to more than 90 percent availability on our escalators on each day. A lot of safety improvements, many of which were suggested by the National Transportation Safety Board and we have coming an entire replacement fleet of subway cars to replace the oldest cars on the fleet, the first ones are about to roll up the production line in Lincoln, Nebraska. Why are we doing all of this? Because Metro is what keeps the region working. Over 50 years now, it has become the backbone of the region. More than half of the jobs in this region are within a half mile of Metro Stations or bus stops and critically for the Federal Government, it is the means of getting federal employees to and from work every day. That's one of the reasons that the Federal Government in 2008 passed a special unique Metro appropriation -- Metro appreciation of $150 million a year to assure that the system is rebuilt. When we look to the future, there are a couple of kind of frames we like to put it in. One is to ask the question what if we didn't have the Metro? Not something we would like to think about. I came to this down first in 1975 when there was no Metro, but there was a lot of holes in the ground, but it has changed so much since then. If we didn't have it, there would be a million more cars on the road every day. There would have to be 1,000 new lane miles of highway. It would not be the kind of reason that we all enjoy today. There is a wonderful PID Chart or picture on page 16 of the report showing that if all these cars came in and had to park in Midtown of D.C., there would no longer be a Midtown of D.C. Essentially five levels of parking throughout the entire downtown area would have to be there. So that's not what we want. We know what the consequences of that would be. We have to look forward just as this region did almost 50 years ago under president Johnson's leadership, they asked the question of what do we want to be as a region and what kind of transportation system do we need to put in place to get there? We think it is time to ask those questions again and hopefully come up with another good set of answers. Another thought is what if we did nothing? What if we just continue to run the system as it is? We are already the most congested region in the country. It would just get worse. Metro would degrade quickly in terms of safety. The progress that we have begun to make in the last three years would be lost pretty quickly. The quality of life in the region would be seriously degraded and our competitive advantage to get people to move here, take jobs create businesses and the like would no longer exist. So we believe we have to look ahead. And our goal initially is to maximize the effectiveness of the system we have with some improvement the system could accomplish a lot more and then be the framework for going further. But we need to plan. We really need to be looking at it now. Things that need to be in place by 2025 should have started already. But if we make decisions now, we can get them in place. The system is truly bursting at the seams right now. I can tell you from the Orange Line this morning, we had a number of my close personal friends who if they work out, they certainly became that as we are riding in here. Buses are standing room only and they have to operate in the same traffic as the auto fleets, so it's just a very inefficient operation. But you stop and think, there are more people coming. The population projection for this region say 30 percent more people, 39 percent more jobs. We have to figure out how to handle that. And the infrastructure is not just going to build itself. Right now, there is no funding in place for any substantial improvement other than the Silver Line, which, you know, is well-under construction now. By the end of this year, it will be turned over to us to begin operations. And the Airport Authority awarded the contract just a few days ago to finish the system out to Dulles and beyond, but nothing is in place beyond that. So the goals of our strategic plan really represent what we believe needs to be done to get to where we need to go. First and foremost, we have to have the best safety culture and the safest system in the country. I chair the board's safety committee. We meet every month to say what are we doing to get to that place? It's what our customers expect. It is what they deserve. The system needs to be physically safe. We need to deal with any issues of crime in the stations and on the buses and our police force is doing that. We need to expect the unexpected. We need to know how we can respond quickly to things that happen on the system. I don't know if any of you were caught up in last night's kind of meltdown on the Orange Line, but we got a report this morning that was solved in about an hour and a half, but it was a pain for everybody. And then lastly, we are beginning to understanding we have to make some serious looks at extreme weather conditions and what we have to do to mitigate those. We were fortunately not in the path of Sandy last summer. My good friends in New York were. They were inundated. I think it is very likely that if it had come in our direction, we would have been inundated. The Smithsonian Station would have looked like Niagara Falls and the water would have flowed throughout the system. So we need to think about that, safety first. We also have to think about customer service. If we cannot serve our customers well, we are not going to get the support we need to expand the system. We have heard what they would like. They want a system that works well. Certainly they want the basics, safety, predictability, reliability, but they also recognized that it needs to be a 21st Century system. It needs to be intuitive, that you can walk in and use it and know how to get around. It needs to have better signage, better customer information. We need to get all of the transit and transportation operators in the region on the same wavelength of providing information, providing a unified trip planning capability, providing a unified fare system. We need to get real-time information in front of the customers when and where they need it. That will be a key commitment. With that, we think we can be a significant force in bringing the system and the region to the next level. A lot of thinking is going on now within the region, the Metro Forward work that COG is doing. Obviously the work that you do with your vision of this capital region. How does transportation fit into that? When Metro was developed and thought through 50 years ago, it was to bring suburban commuters to downtown jobs. That was essentially what it was about. Now, we have multiple employment centers. We have proliferation of transit agencies. We need a transit leader and Metro is volunteering to take that role. Not to do it all, not to be the monopoly provider, but to offer leadership on how our transportation system can serve our regional goals. To do that, we have to squeeze every possible drop of capacity out of the existing system. Eight car trains, what we call a priority corridor network for the buses, core capacity improvements to get people in and out of the center or the region. We need to create empty seats and then fill them with new riders. We need better access, parking, particularly pedestrian connections, mobility solutions for those who have individual needs. And we need to recognize we are now a region of multiple activity centers and two-thirds of them really will depend on high quality transit for their success. We want to be part of and a leader in providing that. And then fourthly as a goal, we have to be financially stable. We have to have a serious conversation about what is the region ready to invest in to have good transportation service. We will work with our regional and our federal partners, hopefully, developing a predictable and reliable funding source, both for ongoing operation, ongoing rebuilding and future investment. We need to invest for the long-term. These are all physical assets with long, but not infinite lives. We have to put them in place and then we have to renew them from time to time. I was thinking this morning Rhode Island Avenue Station is almost 40 years-old. I was here when it first opened. And a couple of weeks ago the bolts gave way on the stairway that takes workers from the platform down onto the track and the stairway fell over into the track. 40 years-old, that's what happens. It happens in your house. It happens everywhere. We need to be working on that. We need to improve our efficiency. We need to give confidence that we operate effectively, focus on key cross-drivers, improve our business processes, use technology better, that's all part of developing the confidence that we need. We need to be green, use technologies and practices to reduce our consumption of natural resources and we need good people. A good system will attract good people, but we would have to keep them and work with them. We look at two time frames in terms of this future system. One we call Metro 2025. We have a sense of what the population will be then. It's pretty easy to project and not as difficult as looking 50 years in the future. We need to have these improvements to our capacity to optimize in the next dozen years what we can do. Squeezing again every last bit of capacity. During rush hours, we are committed to running the longest possible trains we can to give the most run for our customers. That means eventually eight car trains throughout the system. We don't have that number of cars today. We are getting closer to it with what we are now purchasing. We will have to go beyond that. We need to -- CHAIRMAN BRYANT: What -- MR. DOWNEY: -- once we have those longer trains with more people, we need to reconfigure our stations. Those of you who might use Gallery Place nearby here, understand that that doesn't work very well. It was not designed for the number of transfer moves that now occur. We've got to reconfigure Metro Center, Gallery Place, Union Station, so that more people can flow smoothly through those stations. We need perhaps underground pedestrian connections. It has been talked about for a long time. Farragut North to Farragut West, if we make that move, it would make life a lot simpler. Actually, people can make it today if you are willing to go up the escalator and use your fare card and go back in the other station, the free transfer is there. About 500 people a day use it. Our bus system needs to function more efficiently with either dedicated lanes or bus priority or anything that would make sure that the bus moves more competitively than the auto. We need to deal with what our customers want in terms of information systems. They want it to be timely, accurate, audible, you know. In a world of Twitter messages, I get more information out of that than I necessarily do from anybody else. Every minute somebody is saying here is what is going on. We need to be talking about to them. We need to build some key connections within the rail system, so we can have greater reliability. There are things called pocket tracks, a pocket track is where you can store a train and pull it out when you need it or put a train in off the track if it has had a problem. We need more of those. We don't have enough. We don't have all of the connections we would need for a smooth system. And we need to be looking at the Blue Line, those of you who perhaps were down at Alexandria know that you're getting less service than you were a few years ago, since we had to take the capacity of the Rosslyn Tunnel and dedicate more of it to the future Silver Line. That meant more service of the Blue Line had to go over the bridge and it has really made difficult travel for a lot of people in that part of the region. We have ideas not yet fully formed on how we can improve that. So that's what we are looking at in terms of 2025, that's the major focus of our thinking, but we don't want to ignore beyond. Looking beyond that to 2040, we are in just conceptual thinking about what the system might look like. We are developing an amendment to the Regional Transit System Plan, which again is a charter responsibility of Metro, but clearly and effort we do on behalf of the entire region to look at what would we need to significantly expand our ridership and our service. Some people think all we need to do is extend service further out in the suburbs. That's not going to work. More trains coming in and nowhere to put them in the core is not -- just not going to work. We have to look at core capacity. We have to look at a better bus system. We have to evaluate possible new crossings of the Potomac in order to get that core capacity. We also want to work with others on commuter rail systems, express bus systems and other elements of what is truly a regional system that puts us in a position where we can be competitive. Yes, it will all have to be paid for. We have not developed detailed budgets and plans. We recognize there is a significant price tag. We think it is worth it in terms of the benefits, but we have to convince others in the region and in the Federal Government to do that. For the long-term, we have to continue on a permanent basis the renewal of the system as its components age. This stewardship requirement will entail investments of roughly a billion dollars a year forever. It's roughly the cycle that the system has. It was built over 40 years. It needs to be replaced, largely replaced over 40 years and that's essentially a billion dollar annual commitment. If we don't do that, we are going to see it slipping back to not only where it was a few years ago, but I would have to say where New York was when they joined that system in 1981. We don't want to be there. We don't want a system like that. Beyond the renewal effort, enhancements that we are proposing for 2025, which simply catches up and uses our capacity would add about $500 million a year to the price tag to bring the system to where it needs to be in 2025. We don't have a firm figure at all on 2040, because we haven't really zeroed in totally on what we need to do, but it would be even more. And we need to have the discussion about what does that mean to the region? How will that system be warranted? So as it always has, the momentum to rebuild, sustain and grow Metro to support the region has to get the backing of all the stakeholders. And to that extent, over the last year, we have been getting out to talk to people. We have met with more than 10,000 of the region's residents. We are getting support and endorsement from governmental agencies, from the business community, from nonprofit leaders. We are willing to speak with everybody, but we want to be at the important places first and we want to collaborate with those who have an influence over what can happen and what kind of a region we want to see. This is an agency that I think shares the vision that we have of a region that works and a strong transportation component to that. I have read your Comprehensive Plan. I love the transportation chapter, because it says transit first, parking less. But to do that, we have got to have a system that works. And that's our story. We will be continuing to meet and talk to people about it. We will start next year on the discussion of kind of legislative and financial commitments that have to be made and I'm hopeful that we will get to where we need to be. And I'm happy to answer any questions you have about the system or about the plan. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: I noticed that you have a goal of getting to an eight car train. What does a car cost in today's dollars? MR. DOWNEY: Current cars -- CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Ish. MR. DOWNEY: -- about $3 million per car. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Yes. MR. DOWNEY: And it doesn't -- just buying the car is useless, because the system was designed with platforms that are eight cars long, but in a solid decision of what did you read right now, the power system is really only sufficient to run six car trains. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: I see. MR. DOWNEY: So we have to back-up with additional power, some work on the signal system and a lot of work in the stations, so that if we bring in eight cars worth of people, train after train after train, they can get -- frankly, so you can get the people from Train 1 off the platform before Train 2 arrives. So there is a lot that goes with it. We are scoping out, at this point, an eight car train plan that includes all of those elements and making the point it won't make sense to do one without doing all. We are very -- anticipating with great expectation the new cars that will deliver so-called 7000 Series, which means it's the seventh series of cars that have been put on the system. These will be the first that are not tied to what they oldest cars were able to do. Basically said, we have bought new cars and always made them compatible with the old cars, so that means 1967 technology. These will be 2020 technology offering both safety improvements and comfort improvements that haven't been there before. People I think will love them, but we don't have enough of them yet. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Hart? COMMISSIONER HART: Yes. Metro system was a great system. And the notion that it was bringing people from the suburbs into the city was one aspect of that service. In fact, it's a two-way system. I worked in the Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor a number of years ago. MR. DOWNEY: And Arlington made some decisions about land use that really supported that. COMMISSIONER HART: And unfortunately, we don't see that coordination between the transportation system and the land use policy decisions made in a lot of the counties. The Silver Line is an unfortunate example of where a lot of the station locations are out in no man's land. They really could have, in a different you know mindset, brought them through more developed areas to encourage that kind of development response which would have helped to balance your system. MR. DOWNEY: You know, I think partially that is correct and partially the Silver Line is a good example. The decision was made not to go straight to Dulles Airport, but, in fact, go through Tysons. COMMISSIONER HART: Yes. MR. DOWNEY: And with three stations in Tysons and with a commitment from the county to redevelop and rezone Tysons, I think that will be a model. As we get further out, a lot is going to have to happen, but I think in this case the existence of the system and some help from the counties could actually bring the development to the system. COMMISSIONER HART: Yes, Tysons was a good example, but, you know, as you get further out the Dulles Corridor, I think there is an opportunity lost there. And then the connection between you know, Metro and VRE and, you know, MTA is a complimentary connection that I didn't hear you say much about. MR. DOWNEY: All of those ought to work together better. One of the key hubs for that is Union Station. I'm really pleased we have a new -- we are not -- it's not ours, but as a region, we have a new head at the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation. Until recently, she got great vision in terms of what could happen. Again, a big job ahead, but Metro will be a key part of that, but it will link the other two better. One other comment on the land use. It is in our interest to make this a two-way system. Our board heard today at the Real Estate Committee and will be acting in two weeks on a proposal from GSA to basically give them development rights at our Branch Avenue Station out at the end of the Green Line. They will find a federal agency to move in there, that will create two-way movement. It will create people going out of the core, out into Prince Georges for jobs and we hope it will also be the stimulus for a much bigger redevelopment out of Branch Avenue and at a lot of other places in the system where we could do the same. We want to be partners to do that. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Okay. We have Mr. May and then Beth. COMMISSIONER MAY: First of all, I just want to say the importance of the Metro system itself can never be understated. I think that, you know, as a planning body you have to recognize that it is the single most important thing that has occurred here in the last 40 years. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Peter, can you hit your mike? COMMISSIONER MAY: Sorry. It's the single most important thing that has happened here to essentially save the city from becoming something really that we would-- what we would really not want it to be. Just it's so essential and so important and we need to rekindle the kind of vision that went into establishing that system back in the '60s when everybody was still just driving cars. And you know at the capitol they are making plans for giant parking garages underneath their lawns. MR. DOWNEY: And freeways going right through and onto the mall. COMMISSIONER MAY: With freeways and everything. And it was just such a visionary thing to get it done and get it established. Unfortunately, I have been in Washington since '77, so a year after the system opened and I have always had the benefit of using it. But it just has been such an important thing. The second thing is that in every one of the discussions that I have heard in the last few years about the state of the Metro system and of WMATA generally, is the funding issue and the lack of a dedicated funding stream. And you threw out some numbers. There was $150 million in 2008. Is that a recurring amount? MR. DOWNEY: That is a recurring amount. In 2008, Congress passed -- it actually was a national rail legislation. Caboose was the Metro title. It provided $1.5 billion over 10 years as a unique federal contribution. So we have some stability. We know -- we hope it will be there. It does have to be appropriated every year. COMMISSIONER MAY: Right. MR. DOWNEY: Senator Mikulski does a very good job of protecting that for us. COMMISSIONER MAY: Right. MR. DOWNEY: But that isn't forever. That is for 10 years. We need to renew that. We also participate very heavily in the National Federal Transit Program. We are very pleased of two things in the most recent reauthorization. Number one, the formula was changed. It actually gave us more money, based on our needs. And secondly, it authorizes but does not yet fund what are called New Start Investments. This is the kind of money that has gone to build new systems around the country. They have now opened up the possibility of funding core capacity needs. Our system has been dealt, but not it is so successful it needs more capacity. So we think in both those cases, we could generate some federal support, but we also will need to generate very strong regional support. COMMISSIONER MAY: So you also mentioned was it a $500 million that you need per year to -- MR. DOWNEY: Yes, a half a billion a year for roughly 10 to 12 years to get the 2025 -- COMMISSIONER MAY: 2025. MR. DOWNEY: -- in place. COMMISSIONER MAY: And at that moment, that money is not there? MR. DOWNEY: Nope, there is none of that in sight. COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. So I don't know what actions we get to take about this as a Commission, but I think that whatever we can say, we obviously can't -- we don't have money like that to contribute to the cause, but I mean anything that we can say or do to -- in support of funding that shortfall, because that's essentially what it is. I mean, 2025 we are not talking about huge growth. We are talking about essentially keeping pace. MR. DOWNEY: Keeping pace with the growth that will happen -- COMMISSIONER MAY: Exactly. MR. DOWNEY: -- between now and then. COMMISSIONER MAY: And so this is a known shortfall that we must recognize right now. So whatever we can do, as strongly as we can do it to support that, I think is -- would be a very important thing for this Commission to do. MR. DOWNEY: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Ms. White and then Mr. Dixon and then Mr. Miller. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Well, first, I wanted to commend Metro, the board in particular and you individually for your leadership. And the importance of Metro stepping up to be the leader in this region is really so important to what Peter was just saying. Having spent a former life at the Chicago Transit Authority and having worked with you on making sure that transit authorities take this kind of step and very few do. Very few take on a strategic plan and do it in the way that Metro has done it to build that sort of support, at the same time that you are looking at these very hard business decisions. So I really commend you and thank you for being here. And it says a lot that you are here as a board member to present this to us. So we really support you and what you are doing and it's nice to see you again. MR. DOWNEY: I have a strong belief it can be done. When I went to New York in 1981, they were investing about $200 million a year in the system, which is basically nothing. Over the -- now it has been a long time, 35 years, they have now spent $75 billion and still have a lot of work to be done. But we made the case, that was the first effort was to make the case. And if you wanted to still have a New York or CTA you had to make the case, if you still want to have a Chicago, here is what has to be done. Bluntly, if you don't do it, the system will go down the drain. So help us get that message across. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Absolutely. MR. DOWNEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: Mr. Chairman, I think I'll follow-up on Peter's comment to start with. I think we should consider some type of a letter that we could send that they could direct, we could be coached on how to do this, that indicates that we obviously know and recognize how important the transit system is to our mission as the National Capital Planning Commission. I mean, we can't -- it's a very critical spine or structure that we need and we could just speak to that with authority, I think. I now want to get into my -- first of all, I don't want to -- I don't have to recuse myself on this one. Even I have been around many times. I think we have crossed paths and came in. I have been here before, but you came in just as the Government started off and I can reflect that we have been around. So my beard is coming and going, but my hair is gray, so we have been around for a while. I remember my first exposure to the Metro system was with Jack Graham walking through the tunnels. MR. DOWNEY: Walking or riding -- COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: He used to drive his motorcycle through the tunnels, but he rides -- he is a hands-on kind of guy, but that was my first experience and I was just freshly elected to Government and he took us through and showed it to us and the promises ongoing. I also would just mention that the Metro Police was put in place because of a resolution I put through the Council of the District of Columbia to establish the Metro Police. I also will say from a business standpoint, which is why I don't recuse myself, that we designed the first fiber optics network that is now in the Metro system, my company did. That was one of my first projects that my company, my business started and did. And we went back and reevaluated your fiber network a few years later and did a lot of communications work in those tunnels to make sure that they were working. And that leads me to something I have been trying to promote. I think that having seen Metro systems all over the world, there is a lot more displaced monitors that are used for communication, for safety, for information. You have people that can't hear. We have to have pictures. And I know that the fiber is there, I speak as someone who is knowledgeable about that, to connect. I also think that it could be structured properly as a business proposition, some cable company or a new cable operation to bring in the monitors and hook it up and make it work with the advertising that would come through. And I think it would do a lot to help with the safety, the scheduling, the information, etcetera. The other thing I -- at least I have a couple more points. But the other one I've been trying to lobby with some of your board members, I got you now in front of me, is the idea that land use is a big part of your business. There has been talk of your headquarters moving from downtown, you make a lot of money on that property I think right now to help with that budget, at least one shot. Maybe you could rent it and make you the owner. I don't know how it works. But moving your headquarters, there was some talk about bringing it to Anacostia, east of the river, whether that will happen I don't know, but that would be -- we would probably welcome you over there. You could do a lot for us. The land use over top of these Metro Stations, I would like to think about whether or not, certainly in our area, day care, some day care capacity, state of the art day care capacity with the recreational facilities for the kids to be on top is the safest place in that area, because day care is a way to break through for young single parents to get into the job market. And I don't know whether it would be an ideal place for them to drop and go and keep going. MR. DOWNEY: We have some great examples of that around the country. COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: Well, I hope that that is -- because we are talking about it now and what we are going to do with these Congress lights in the Anacostia Station. So land use is part of your system. When you mention that and, obviously, you all just passed something to move forward on, so day care is what I was -- wanted to mention in terms of what might be useful. And I think that -- I'm also seeing a lot of trolley and other competitive forms of transportation, which I think really can be useful to strengthen the Metro. And I think that -- MR. DOWNEY: Metro is the backbone of everything else -- COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: I understand. Exactly right. MR. DOWNEY: -- to connect to it. COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: But just remember one thing though, Brazil just had a very serious riot, maybe still rioting. MR. DOWNEY: Over fares. COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: Over fares that went up on poor people. So it don't matter what you may want to build, you've got to think about how much money you need. You've got to be careful how you do it, because that's what busted the seams in Brazil just recently. MR. DOWNEY: On the land use question, we had a conversation at the board meeting this morning. We have what we call key performance indicators. Are the trains on time? Is safety getting better? We have added one that's not fully fleshed out yet, but to measure what impact Metro is having vis-a-vis regional development and it will be to look at how much of the new employment and new population is falling into the areas adjacent to the stations and the bus stops. It is very high. We want to keep it that way. COMMISSIONER ARRINGTON: Um-hum. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Miller? COMMISSIONER MILLER: Mr. Chairman, yes, I'll be brief. Just to associate -- well, thank you very much for that excellent presentation and to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues, particular, Mr. Peter May, about you can't state it enough the importance of the Metro to the region and to the District of Columbia, in particular the economy, the environment, the transportation. And the Mayor and the Council have each endorsed Momentum and I would agree with my colleagues that this body should somehow find a way to endorse it formally as well. MR. DOWNEY: We can't take the system for granted. Frankly, for a while, the region took it for granted and the management and the board took it for granted and that's where it was in 2009 and we are trying to put it back to where it ought to be. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: I'm going to call on Mr. Socks. MR. SOCKS: Mr. Chairman and other Commission Members, we are expecting that Metro will be coming back to us in September asking for an official endorsement. But prior to that, we will ask the staff to review it against our policies and plans and make a recommendation to you concerning the endorsement. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Okay. All right. MR. DOWNEY: We would be honored is you would be willing to do that. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Mr. Provancha? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Okay. A couple of comments as a customer. MR. DOWNEY: Yes. A paying customer, right? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Followed by some complimentary comments. COMMISSIONER WHITE: Oh dear. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: To make it fair and balanced. Caught up in the Orange Line debacle last night and then the previous one where some how or another an operator is able to take control of the -- of an Orange Line train and turn south and proceed along the Blue Line to Arlington Cemetery. I believe that has happened twice. I don't know how mechanically or if they have -- MR. DOWNEY: I know it happened and I -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- usurped control from central command that they are able to do that? It's a bit frightening and disconcerting to the folks that -- MR. DOWNEY: The assurance of that -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- you hear an announcement and you follow the instructions and then it goes wherever it wants to go. MR. DOWNEY: Yes. We don't know yet why it did that. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I think clearly some safety issue there. MR. DOWNEY: I will say hearing all of the facts about it, it was not an unsafe thing to have happened. The train just suddenly became a Blue Line train and followed the rules and the directions that a Blue Line train would follow. But all of its customers were headed in that direction. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Being on that train and observing the flurry of activity and the disembarking of the operator and the folks that converged and the lack of communication, it didn't appear that there was -- it was under control. A question about it and I don't know if the power is related, too. We noticed some, particularly on the Orange Line, signage latency. For example, the train will show up and it will show -- and the sign will so indicate the train is four minutes away or it will be gone and it will still say boarding. MR. DOWNEY: Yes. Yes, that system was PID, Passenger Information Display, or state of the art 25 years ago. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Starting to degrade. MR. DOWNEY: You can go almost anywhere and find something that is far better than that and that's our goal. I think you probably have seen the screens that are in the -- by the kiosks, new screens, better readable, better information with fiber ability to deliver the information. We can and we will do better. I'm going to spend August in China. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Not having these -- PARTICIPANT: Going to Hong Kong. MR. DOWNEY: I spent three days in Hong Kong. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Not currently having these lay-by tracks in the system, is that why you might be standing at a station, I'll use an example of the Orange and the Blue Line, you want the Blue Line to go in one direction and two, three, four Orange Line trains come along? MR. DOWNEY: That's partly a function of what the scheduling is. There are more Blue Lines -- more Orange Line trains scheduled than Blue Lines. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I see. MR. DOWNEY: But if we had the pocket tracks, we would -- and one of them caused a problem, we could get it off and get it out of the way and, you know, come back after the rush hour to move it out. Not with the customers on it with just the operator. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: The rush hour express type of situation, has that been in place long enough to consider it a success and that will be a permanent -- MR. DOWNEY: The Rush+ Service? COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Yes, sir. Is that going to be a permanent -- MR. DOWNEY: It has been -- COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- option? MR. DOWNEY: -- a success. It has been a success for those people who got better service. The Blue Line riders from Alexandria do not consider it to be a success and we need to deal with that, but overall it is working and it will allow us to transition smoothly to Silver Line opening, at which point there will be somewhat fewer Orange trains, Silver trains coming in at Falls Church and joining Blue Line trains under the river. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: We at the Department -- MR. DOWNEY: The capacity under the river at Rosslyn, that's the choke point, yes. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: We at DoD are strong supporters of the -- we have the largest mass transit benefit subsidy program with more than 30,000 participants and more than $40 million in annual benefits. Over $50 million during the ARRA supplements. MR. DOWNEY: Yes, that has been really good for the system. So many of our riders are federal employees and due to the Executive Order that President Clinton signed when I was there and the Congress making it permanent, all those employees were getting all of their transit paid for until the Congress didn't pass the legislation. It continued suddenly a year ago, the benefit was cut in half and we saw it in terms of ridership. Some people said, gee, at this level of subsidy, I'm going to go back to a carpool. That was fixed but only temporarily. We are going to make a major effort to fix it, but we appreciate certainly what DoD has done. We also appreciate another service, the Coast Guard, which I used to be an officer in, who signs an agreement with us today to fully subsidize bus service to their new headquarters at St. Elizabeths. They are picking up the tab. They are buying the buses. It will be free to their employees. And we think it's a great thing for them to be doing. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Very much so. MR. DOWNEY: And you have been doing the same with respect to the Mark Center. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Right. Yes, we have been -- we subsidize that. We made an agreement with Alexandria DASH system and DoD -- MR. DOWNEY: And with us as well. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: -- to invest more than $4 million a year to make that happen. We appreciate WMATA stepping forward and volunteering herself to nominate and to lead the regional planning, but aren't -- are you in competition though with other designated groups like Northern Virginia Regional Commission, who have that as a charter role? MR. DOWNEY: There are a lot of groups. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: That you would normally partner with? MR. DOWNEY: We are trying to partner. We are partnering with them. There is a considerable overlap between our board and the Northern Virginia Board, so they do work together. It can get complicated, but we try to sort it out. We think somebody has to be the face to the public to say what do you want and how can we make it happen. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Right. One other area I think that is absolutely good in seamless operations is in the area of security emergency management. MR. DOWNEY: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: I know that our Pentagon Force Protection Agency works very closely with your Transit Police. MR. DOWNEY: With our police force, yes. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: It's a good communication. The last question is about capacity. For those of us that have centralized operations that would like to disperse our assets across the system, do you have capacity information for us at the various stops that would tell us -- (Simultaneous speaking). MR. DOWNEY: We could start planning to partner with you, if you would do that. Again, that's one of the reasons we have been talking to GSA about locating federal officers at places where we have significant capacities. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Branch Avenue model sounds like a good one. MR. DOWNEY: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER PROVANCHA: Very good. Thank you again for your presentation. MR. DOWNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you. Sensing no further Commission comments, Mr. Williams, did you have a comment? MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a suggestion and it's this. As the Secretary knows, I read her notes about the tentative agenda regularly. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: You have no life whatsoever, do you? MR. WILLIAMS: Pardon? CHAIRMAN BRYANT: You have no life whatsoever. MR. WILLIAMS: I do. This conversation that we are having today wasn't on the tentative agenda. It came along later and it has been wonderful and I'm concerned that if you go forward with this endorsement, it needs to be known by the NCPC community, the leadership, if you will, so I would like to suggest that somehow you do an email blast about having received this and so that when it comes up in September, it isn't going to appear like a stealth endorsement, but I look -- I'll go to that, because I can see where to go. But I think there may be others that may be a little surprised because it just slipped in and is enjoying a summer thing and we know what happens when things happen that are not planned during August. Thanks so much. CHAIRMAN BRYANT: Thank you. As we all know, we don't meet in August. It's the one month of the year we don't meet, so we will review the Strategic Plan over August and we will determine whether to and if so the legalities of any endorsement pursuit. So we will be back in September for that. And will be properly noticed, I can assure you. With that, does staff have anything else? Anything else before us? Thank you. It has been a long meeting. I did want to note that Mark Olinger, who is the Planning Director from the City of Richmond, Virginia, my hometown, has visited with us today. I would like to thank staff or having spent some time with him and for the Commission for being on your best behavior in front of a guest. So thank you very much and we are adjourned.

Current listings

[3] Name on the Register[4] Image Date listed[5] Location City or town Description
1 Ashleigh August 14, 1973
(#73002012)
South of Delaplane, off U.S. Route 17
38°54′08″N 77°55′07″W / 38.902222°N 77.918611°W / 38.902222; -77.918611 (Ashleigh)
Delaplane
2 Ashville Historic District February 11, 2004
(#04000043)
4236-4130 Ashville Rd. and part of Old Ashville Rd.
38°51′54″N 77°55′21″W / 38.865000°N 77.922500°W / 38.865000; -77.922500 (Ashville Historic District)
Marshall
3 Atoka Historic District November 27, 2004
(#04001266)
1461, 1466, 1468, and 1481 Atoka Rd. and 7258 and 7260 Rectors Ln.
38°58′30″N 77°48′33″W / 38.975000°N 77.809167°W / 38.975000; -77.809167 (Atoka Historic District)
Atoka
4 Auburn Battlefield December 5, 2011
(#11000873)
Bounded by Casanova, Auburn Baptist Church, and Catlett
38°42′09″N 77°42′06″W / 38.702611°N 77.701667°W / 38.702611; -77.701667 (Auburn Battlefield)
Catlett part of the Civil War in Virginia Multiple Property Submission (MPS)
5 Belle Grove August 30, 2006
(#06000756)
1402 Winchester Rd.
38°58′46″N 77°57′16″W / 38.979444°N 77.954444°W / 38.979444; -77.954444 (Belle Grove)
Delaplane
6 Beverley Mill February 23, 1972
(#72001411)
Junction of State Route 55 and Beverleys Mill Rd.
38°49′28″N 77°42′38″W / 38.824583°N 77.710556°W / 38.824583; -77.710556 (Beverley Mill)
The Plains
7 Blue Ridge Farm August 30, 2006
(#06000753)
1799 Blue Ridge Farm Rd.
38°57′28″N 77°52′43″W / 38.957778°N 77.878611°W / 38.957778; -77.878611 (Blue Ridge Farm)
Upperville
8 Brentmoor January 20, 1978
(#78003016)
173 Main St.
38°42′42″N 77°47′26″W / 38.711667°N 77.790556°W / 38.711667; -77.790556 (Brentmoor)
Warrenton
9 Bristersburg Historic District May 21, 2009
(#09000336)
Parts of Elk Run and Bristersburg Rds.
38°35′01″N 77°36′47″W / 38.583611°N 77.613056°W / 38.583611; -77.613056 (Bristersburg Historic District)
Bristersburg
10 Broad Run-Little Georgetown Rural Historic District April 21, 2016
(#16000205)
Roughly bounded by The Plains, the Bull Run Mountains, State Route 55, Bust Head Rd., and Hopewell Rd.
38°49′29″N 77°43′53″W / 38.824722°N 77.731389°W / 38.824722; -77.731389 (Broad Run-Little Georgetown Rural Historic District)
Broad Run Extends into Prince William County
11 Burrland Farm Historic District November 7, 1997
(#97001406)
Burrland Ln.
38°57′08″N 77°45′05″W / 38.952222°N 77.751389°W / 38.952222; -77.751389 (Burrland Farm Historic District)
Middleburg
12 Calverton Historic District August 12, 2010
(#10000542)
Parts of Bristersburg and Catlett Rds.
38°38′07″N 77°40′25″W / 38.635278°N 77.673611°W / 38.635278; -77.673611 (Calverton Historic District)
Calverton
13 Carters Run Rural Historic District May 15, 2014
(#14000236)
Generally centered along Carters Run, Scotts Rd., and the eastern side of Free State Rd.
38°49′50″N 77°51′24″W / 38.830556°N 77.856667°W / 38.830556; -77.856667 (Carters Run Rural Historic District)
Marshall
14 Casanova Historic District November 16, 2005
(#05001264)
Parts of Casanova Rd., Rogues Rd., and Weston Rd.
38°39′28″N 77°43′02″W / 38.657778°N 77.717222°W / 38.657778; -77.717222 (Casanova Historic District)
Casanova
15 Catlett Historic District February 21, 2008
(#08000069)
Prospect Ave. and parts of Gaskins Ln. and Tenerife, Elk Run, Old Catlett, Catlett, Old Dumfries, and Catlett School Rds.
38°39′16″N 77°38′27″W / 38.654444°N 77.640833°W / 38.654444; -77.640833 (Catlett Historic District)
Catlett
16 Cromwell's Run Rural Historic District September 19, 2008
(#08000907)
Along Atoka Rd., roughly bounded on the west by Goose Creek, on the north by U.S. Route 50, and on the east by Cromwell's Run; also bounded by the Fauquier County line on the north and the existing Cromwell's Run Rural Historic District on the east
38°56′35″N 77°49′20″W / 38.943056°N 77.822222°W / 38.943056; -77.822222 (Cromwell's Run Rural Historic District)
Rectortown Second set of boundaries represents a boundary increase of November 12, 2008
17 Crooked Run Valley Rural Historic District May 27, 2004
(#04000550)
Roughly bounded by the Fauquier County line, Interstate 66, Delaplane Grade Rd., Naked Mountain, and State Route 55
38°55′50″N 77°57′24″W / 38.930556°N 77.956667°W / 38.930556; -77.956667 (Crooked Run Valley Rural Historic District)
Paris
18 Dakota July 27, 2005
(#05000768)
8134 Springs Rd.
38°42′12″N 77°48′25″W / 38.703333°N 77.807083°W / 38.703333; -77.807083 (Dakota)
Warrenton
19 Deerfield January 14, 2019
(#100003309)
9009 John S. Mosby Highway
38°59′20″N 77°52′36″W / 38.988889°N 77.876667°W / 38.988889; -77.876667 (Deerfield)
Upperville
20 Delaplane Historic District February 11, 2004
(#04000050)
Parts of Delaplane Grade Rd. and Rokeby Rd.
38°54′56″N 77°55′12″W / 38.915556°N 77.920000°W / 38.915556; -77.920000 (Delaplane Historic District)
Delaplane
21 Galemont September 25, 2012
(#12000824)
5071 Galemont Ln.
38°50′00″N 77°44′05″W / 38.833457°N 77.734635°W / 38.833457; -77.734635 (Galemont)
Broad Run
22 Germantown Archeological Sites September 16, 1982
(#82004555)
Southeast of Rogues Rd.[6]
38°36′49″N 77°43′13″W / 38.613611°N 77.720278°W / 38.613611; -77.720278 (Germantown Archeological Sites)
Midland
23 Green Pastures May 29, 2002
(#02000596)
2337 Zulla Rd.
38°56′30″N 77°46′26″W / 38.941667°N 77.773889°W / 38.941667; -77.773889 (Green Pastures)
Middleburg
24 Heflin's Store February 11, 2004
(#04000046)
5310 Blantyre Rd.
38°49′28″N 77°43′55″W / 38.824306°N 77.731944°W / 38.824306; -77.731944 (Heflin's Store)
Little Georgetown
25 The Hollow January 16, 2004
(#03001442)
Leeds Manor Rd. and north of Marshall School Ln.
38°54′34″N 77°59′38″W / 38.909444°N 77.993889°W / 38.909444; -77.993889 (The Hollow)
Markham Boyhood home of John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States 1801-1835
26 Hopefield March 10, 2009
(#09000120)
6763 Airlie Rd.
38°44′51″N 77°47′31″W / 38.747500°N 77.791944°W / 38.747500; -77.791944 (Hopefield)
Warrenton
27 Hume Historic District February 21, 2008
(#08000070)
Hume and Leeds Manor Rds.
38°49′51″N 77°59′56″W / 38.830833°N 77.998889°W / 38.830833; -77.998889 (Hume Historic District)
Hume
28 Little River Rural Historic District February 14, 2014
(#14000011)
Roughly bounded by U.S. Route 50, Bull Run Mountain Rd., and Landmark School Rd.
38°54′57″N 77°44′39″W / 38.915833°N 77.744167°W / 38.915833; -77.744167 (Little River Rural Historic District)
The Plains
29 Loretta December 23, 1993
(#93001442)
Eastern side of U.S. Route 17, 3,500 feet (1,100 m) north of the Warrenton town limits
38°44′53″N 77°48′32″W / 38.748194°N 77.808750°W / 38.748194; -77.808750 (Loretta)
Warrenton
30 Markham Historic District November 17, 2005
(#05001261)
Parts of E. State Route 55, Farm House Rd., Leeds Manor Rd., Old Markham Rd., Poverty Hollow Lane, Rail Stop Rd., and Stone Church Rd.
38°54′18″N 77°59′40″W / 38.905000°N 77.994444°W / 38.905000; -77.994444 (Markham Historic District)
Markham
31 Marshall Historic District March 19, 2007
(#07000191)
Including parts of Anderson Ave., Emerald Ln., Frost St., Main St., Rosstown Rd., Wild Aster Ct., and Winchester Rd.
38°51′59″N 77°51′17″W / 38.866267°N 77.854678°W / 38.866267; -77.854678 (Marshall Historic District)
Marshall
32 John Marshall's Leeds Manor Rural Historic District November 1, 2007
(#07001138)
Centered along Leeds Manor Rd. from Leeds Church to Raven Ln.
38°54′38″N 77°59′26″W / 38.910556°N 77.990556°W / 38.910556; -77.990556 (John Marshall's Leeds Manor Rural Historic District)
Markham
33 Melrose February 10, 1983
(#83003281)
North of Casanova on Rogues Rd.
38°40′25″N 77°42′33″W / 38.673611°N 77.709167°W / 38.673611; -77.709167 (Melrose)
Casanova
34 Midland Historic District January 31, 2019
(#100003392)
Includes parts of Rouges, Midland, Catlett, Dowell, Germantown, and Old Carolina Rds., and Linden, Chestnut, and 2nd Sts.
38°35′53″N 77°43′27″W / 38.598056°N 77.724167°W / 38.598056; -77.724167 (Midland Historic District)
Midland
35 Mill House January 12, 1984
(#84003527)
U.S. Route 50
38°58′10″N 77°47′29″W / 38.969444°N 77.791389°W / 38.969444; -77.791389 (Mill House)
Middleburg
36 Gen. William Mitchell House December 8, 1976
(#76002112)
0.5 miles (0.80 km) south of Middleburg on The Plains Rd.
38°57′44″N 77°44′36″W / 38.962222°N 77.743333°W / 38.962222; -77.743333 (Gen. William Mitchell House)
Middleburg
37 Monterosa January 25, 1991
(#90002193)
343 Culpeper St.
38°42′27″N 77°48′01″W / 38.707500°N 77.800278°W / 38.707500; -77.800278 (Monterosa)
Warrenton
38 Morgantown Historic District February 11, 2004
(#04000045)
Roughly surrounding the junction of Freestate Rd. and Mount Nebo Church Rd., as well as a discontiguous cemetery located approximately 0.2 miles (0.32 km) to the southeast at the end of Mount Nebo Church Rd.
38°50′29″N 77°52′47″W / 38.841389°N 77.879722°W / 38.841389; -77.879722 (Morgantown Historic District)
Marshall
39 Morven May 30, 2002
(#02000597)
3918 Leeds Manor Rd.
38°52′21″N 77°59′51″W / 38.872500°N 77.997500°W / 38.872500; -77.997500 (Morven)
Markham
40 Mount Hope February 1, 2006
(#05001625)
6015 Georgetown Rd.
38°47′30″N 77°44′02″W / 38.791667°N 77.733889°W / 38.791667; -77.733889 (Mount Hope)
New Baltimore
41 Mt. Bleak-Skye Farm (030-0283) May 24, 2004
(#04000552)
11012 Edmonds Ln.
38°59′28″N 77°57′57″W / 38.991111°N 77.965833°W / 38.991111; -77.965833 (Mt. Bleak-Skye Farm (030-0283))
Delaplane
42 New Baltimore Historic District February 11, 2004
(#04000044)
Parts of Old Alexandria Turnpike, Mason Ln., Georgetown Rd., and Beverley's Mill Rd.
38°46′01″N 77°43′36″W / 38.766944°N 77.726667°W / 38.766944; -77.726667 (New Baltimore Historic District)
New Baltimore
43 North Wales June 29, 1999
(#99000726)
7392 Ironwood Ln.
38°40′24″N 77°49′16″W / 38.673333°N 77.821111°W / 38.673333; -77.821111 (North Wales)
Warrenton
44 Number 18 School in Marshall November 7, 1997
(#97001405)
Junction of State Route 55 and Whiting Rd.
38°52′11″N 77°49′54″W / 38.869722°N 77.831528°W / 38.869722; -77.831528 (Number 18 School in Marshall)
Marshall
45 Oak Hill June 18, 1973
(#73002013)
2.2 miles (3.5 km) south of Delaplane
38°53′16″N 77°54′03″W / 38.887778°N 77.900833°W / 38.887778; -77.900833 (Oak Hill)
Delaplane
46 Oakley February 24, 1983
(#83003282)
East of Upperville on U.S. Route 50
38°58′36″N 77°51′55″W / 38.976667°N 77.865278°W / 38.976667; -77.865278 (Oakley)
Upperville
47 The Oaks May 30, 2002
(#02000585)
8457 Oaks Rd.
38°41′08″N 77°50′32″W / 38.685556°N 77.842222°W / 38.685556; -77.842222 (The Oaks)
Warrenton
48 Oakwood February 2, 2016
(#15001038)
7433 Oakwood Dr.
38°43′38″N 77°50′59″W / 38.727222°N 77.849722°W / 38.727222; -77.849722 (Oakwood)
Warrenton
49 Old Denton March 12, 2012
(#12000123)
7064 Young Rd.
38°54′55″N 77°47′45″W / 38.915278°N 77.795833°W / 38.915278; -77.795833 (Old Denton)
The Plains
50 Old Fauquier County Jail January 20, 1978
(#78003015)
Fauquier County Courthouse Sq.
38°42′49″N 77°47′46″W / 38.713611°N 77.796111°W / 38.713611; -77.796111 (Old Fauquier County Jail)
Warrenton
51 Orlean Historic District August 14, 2009
(#09000615)
Parts of John Barnton Payne and Leeds Manor Rds.
38°45′10″N 77°57′50″W / 38.752778°N 77.963889°W / 38.752778; -77.963889 (Orlean Historic District)
Orlean
52 Paradise April 11, 2014
(#14000147)
158 Winchester St.
38°43′02″N 77°47′57″W / 38.717222°N 77.799167°W / 38.717222; -77.799167 (Paradise)
Warrenton
53 Paris Historic District March 21, 2007
(#07000192)
Federal St. and parts of Republican St. and Gap Run Rd.
39°00′17″N 77°57′06″W / 39.004722°N 77.951667°W / 39.004722; -77.951667 (Paris Historic District)
Paris
54 The Plains Historic District May 21, 2014
(#14000232)
Parts of Main, Mosby, Lee, Bragg, Stuart, Jackson, Pickett, and Broad Sts., Fauquier and Loudoun Aves., and Hopewell Rd.
38°51′44″N 77°46′27″W / 38.862222°N 77.774167°W / 38.862222; -77.774167 (The Plains Historic District)
The Plains
55 Rectortown Historic District November 27, 2004
(#04001267)
Roughly bounded by Maidstone, Rectortown, Atoka, Lost Corner, and Crenshaw Rds.
38°55′12″N 77°51′38″W / 38.920000°N 77.860556°W / 38.920000; -77.860556 (Rectortown Historic District)
Rectortown
56 Remington Historic District May 5, 2005
(#05000395)
Parts of E. and W. Bowen St., N. Church St., N. Franklin St., N. John Stone St., E. and W. Main St., S. Mill St., Sumerduck Rd., Tinpot Run Lane, and E. and W. Washington St.
38°32′06″N 77°48′26″W / 38.535000°N 77.807222°W / 38.535000; -77.807222 (Remington Historic District)
Remington
57 Sumerduck Historic District May 21, 2009
(#09000337)
Parts of Sumerduck Rd.
38°27′37″N 77°43′39″W / 38.460278°N 77.727500°W / 38.460278; -77.727500 (Sumerduck Historic District)
Sumerduck
58 Thoroughfare Gap Battlefield November 18, 1999
(#99001374)
Junction of Interstate 66 and State Route 55
38°49′26″N 77°42′52″W / 38.823889°N 77.714444°W / 38.823889; -77.714444 (Thoroughfare Gap Battlefield)
Broad Run Extends into Prince William County
59 Upperville Historic District October 18, 1972
(#72001394)
Including the entire village extending approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) along U.S. Route 50
38°59′39″N 77°53′03″W / 38.994167°N 77.884167°W / 38.994167; -77.884167 (Upperville Historic District)
Upperville
60 Warrenton Historic District October 13, 1983
(#83004243)
Roughly Main, Waterloo, Alexandria, Winchester, Culpeper, High, Falmouth, Lee, and Horner Sts.
38°42′40″N 77°47′35″W / 38.711111°N 77.793056°W / 38.711111; -77.793056 (Warrenton Historic District)
Warrenton
61 Waveland August 20, 2004
(#04000888)
Carter's Run Rd.
38°49′50″N 77°51′24″W / 38.830556°N 77.856667°W / 38.830556; -77.856667 (Waveland)
Marshall
62 Waverly March 26, 1979
(#79003040)
South of Middleburg on Halfway Rd.
38°55′51″N 77°44′39″W / 38.930833°N 77.744167°W / 38.930833; -77.744167 (Waverly)
Middleburg
63 Weston December 6, 1996
(#96001447)
4477 Weston Rd.
38°39′48″N 77°41′57″W / 38.663333°N 77.699167°W / 38.663333; -77.699167 (Weston)
Casanova
64 Woodside August 12, 2009
(#09000616)
9525 Maidstone Rd.
38°54′13″N 77°54′06″W / 38.903611°N 77.901667°W / 38.903611; -77.901667 (Woodside)
Delaplane
65 Yew Hill-Robert Ashby's Tavern-Shacklett's Tavern January 20, 2005
(#04001535)
10030 State Route 55
38°54′26″N 77°55′11″W / 38.907222°N 77.919722°W / 38.907222; -77.919722 (Yew Hill-Robert Ashby's Tavern-Shacklett's Tavern)
Delaplane
66 Yorkshire House June 1, 2005
(#05000522)
405 Winchester St.
38°43′23″N 77°47′57″W / 38.723056°N 77.799167°W / 38.723056; -77.799167 (Yorkshire House)
Warrenton

See also

References

  1. ^ The latitude and longitude information provided in this table was derived originally from the National Register Information System, which has been found to be fairly accurate for about 99% of listings. For about 1% of NRIS original coordinates, experience has shown that one or both coordinates are typos or otherwise extremely far off; some corrections may have been made. A more subtle problem causes many locations to be off by up to 150 yards, depending on location in the country: most NRIS coordinates were derived from tracing out latitude and longitudes from USGS topographical quadrant maps created under the North American Datum of 1927, which differs from the current, highly accurate WGS84 GPS system used by most on-line maps. Chicago is about right, but NRIS longitudes in Washington are higher by about 4.5 seconds, and are lower by about 2.0 seconds in Maine. Latitudes differ by about 1.0 second in Florida. Some locations in this table may have been corrected to current GPS standards.
  2. ^ "National Register of Historic Places: Weekly List Actions". National Park Service, United States Department of the Interior. Retrieved on May 17, 2019.
  3. ^ Numbers represent an ordering by significant words. Various colorings, defined here, differentiate National Historic Landmarks and historic districts from other NRHP buildings, structures, sites or objects.
  4. ^ National Park Service (2008-04-24). "National Register Information System". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service.
  5. ^ The eight-digit number below each date is the number assigned to each location in the National Register Information System database, which can be viewed by clicking the number.
  6. ^ Sylvester, Caitlyn. Germantown, Virginia: A Cultural Landscape Study. Diss. University of Maryland, 2014, 24.
This page was last edited on 11 May 2019, at 15:25
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.