· 1 NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION + + + + + COMMISSION MEETING + + + + + OPEN SESSION + +...

1

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION + + + + +

COMMISSION MEETING + + + + +

OPEN SESSION + + + + + THURSDAY,

NOVEMBER 2, 2017 + + + + +

The meeting convened in Room 5115,Suite 500, 401 9th Street, NW, Washington, DC20004, at 1:30 p.m., L. Preston Bryant, Jr.,Chairman, presiding.

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

L. PRESTON BRYANT, JR., ChairmanPresidential Appointee

EVAN CASH, Office of the Chairman of theCouncil of the District of Columbia

ARRINGTON DIXON, Mayoral AppointeeTHOMAS GALLAS, Presidential AppointeeGEOFFREY GRIFFIS, Mayoral AppointeePETER MAY, Department of the InteriorJOSH MCLEOD, U.S. Senate Committee on

Homeland Security and GovernmentalAffairs

MICHAEL RHODES, Department of DefenseERIC SHAW, Office of the Mayor of the

District of Columbia BETH WHITE, Presidential Appointee

MINA WRIGHT, General Services Administration

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc. (202) 234-4433 Washington DC www.nealrgross.com

http:www.nealrgross.com

2

NCPC STAFF PRESENT: MARCEL C. ACOSTA, Executive Director

MATTHEW FLIS, Senior Urban DesignerJULIA KOSTER, Secretary to the CommissionVIVIAN LEE, Urban PlannerANNE SCHUYLER, General CounselMICHAEL WEIL, Urban Planner



3

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

PageReport of the Chairman

Preston Bryant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Report of the Executive Director

Marcel Acosta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - No Presentation . . . . . 9 United States General Services Administration,Nebraska Avenue Complex, United States Departmentof Homeland Security, 3801Nebraska Avenue, NW, Washington, DC - NewGuard Booth and Fence Augmentation Maryland National Capital Park and PlanningCommission, Northwest Branch Stream Valley Park,University Blvd and West Park Drive, CollegePark, Maryland - University BlvdStormwater Management Pond ACTION ITEMS - With Presentation . . . . . . . . .11 Smithsonian Institution, National Air and SpaceMuseum, Independence Avenue at 6th Street, SW,Washington, DC - Building Exterior, Vestibulesand Site Improvements(Commission action requested: approval ofcomments on revised concept design pursuant to 40U.S.C. § 8722(b)(1) and (d))

Vivian Lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 District of Columbia Department ofTransportation, 11th Street Bridge, SE,Washington, DC - 11th Street Bridge Park(Commission action requested: approval ofcomments on concept design pursuant to40 U.S.C. § 8722(b)(1))

Matthew Flis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47



4

United States Department of Defense, Departmentof the Navy, Joint Base Andrews, Camp Springs,Maryland - Consolidated Communications Center(Commission action requested: approval ofcomments on concept design pursuant to40 U.S.C. § 8722(b)(1))

Michael Weil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89



5

1234 5 6 7 89

10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 1:31 p.m.

CHAIR BRYANT: Welcome, everyone. Welcome to the National Capital Planning Commission's November 2nd, 2017, meeting. If you would please, stand with me and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge of Allegiance.) CHAIR BRYANT: Thank you. And thank

you to the audience for your patience. We were late getting started this morning, so thank you for giving us a bit of leeway.

We have a quorum. And for all gathered, please note that we are being live-streamed on the NCPC.gov website. With this quorum, we will proceed with the agenda as has been publicly advertised.

Tonight, number one is before the Chairman, I have three items. One, a long-time member of this Commission, Bradley Provancha, who represented the Department of Defense, has retired. Mr. Provancha had 48 years of public


http:www.nealrgross.comhttp:NCPC.gov

6

1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 192021 22

service, and we wish him well in his much deserved retirement.

Second, this morning a number of Commission members were able to go to the ground-breaking ceremonies for the Eisenhower Memorial. Ably-represented were, obviously, Gehry Partners and AECOM who have worked hand-in-glove with our staff for the last number of years.

And so we congratulate them on bringing the project to a successful design. And we anxiously will observe the -- ably observe the construction of this terrific memorial.

Third, I note that our fellow Commissioner, Mr. Gallas, who was principal with Torti Gallas, they have published their first book entitled Architects of Community. And we congratulate you on that. And it will shoot to Number 1 on Amazon.

(Laughter.) CHAIR BRYANT: And then last, I would

say a fellow Commissioner, Beth White, from Houston, may have something to celebrate after



7

1 2 3 4 56 7 89

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 1819 20 21 22

last night's World Series and all that her community has been through over the last few months. So congratulations to Ms. White and to everyone back in Houston.

With that, I will -- Agenda Item Number 2 is the report of the Executive Director, Mr. Acosta.

MR. ACOSTA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have two items to note today. First, the revised submission guidelines and NEPA regulations that this Commission adopted took effect on October 30th after a 30-day posting on the Federal Register.

And that means that all projects submitted to NCPC will now follow the revised documents, which is your basic guidance for the Commission's review of plans and projects.

I'm also pleased to announce that, on October 18th, the Committee of 100 on the Federal City presented a Vision Award to NCPC, the District Office of Planning, as well as the General Services Administration for the final



8

1 2 34 5 6 78 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 1617 1819 20 21 22

score guidelines for the J. Edgar Hoover site, FBI Headquarters.

The award, as I said, the guidelines serve as an excellent example of vision, coordinated analysis, and planning for the future use of the FBI site.

I'd like to thank our sister agencies and the members of the public who have participated in that effort. Special thanks to Beth Miller and her staff for the very good work on this, as well as our colleagues at the other agencies. And we look forward to continuing this collaboration with the Pennsylvania Avenue initiative. And that concludes my presentation for today.

CHAIR BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Acosta. Any questions for Mr. Acosta? Mr. May?

COMMISSIONER MAY: No questions. I just wanted to commend the NCPC staff and GSA on that particular -- the score guidelines were just such a difficult task to accomplish. And I just think it's great. And it's great to be recognized



9

1 23 45 6789

101112 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22

for it. So good job. CHAIR BRYANT: Agenda Item Number 3 is

a legislative update. Ms. Schuyler? MS. SCHUYLER: Mr. Chairman, I have

nothing to report. CHAIR BRYANT: Excellent. (Laughter.) CHAIR BRYANT: Agenda Item Number 4 is

the consent calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - No Presentation

CHAIR BRYANT: We have four items on the consent calendar. Item 4A is for the final site development plans for the guard booth and fence augmentation at the Nebraska Avenue complex. And it was submitted by GSA on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security.

Agenda Item 4B is for preliminary final approval of site development plans for a new stormwater management pond at Northwest Branch Park in College Park, Maryland. This project was submitted by the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission.



10

123 4 5 67 8 9

101112 1314151617 181920 2122

Is there a motion, Mr. Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Hi, Mr. Chairman.

I move that we remove Item 4A from the consent calendar and postpone it until the December 7th meeting.

CHAIR BRYANT: It's been moved and seconded that Agenda Item Number 4A be removed from today's consent calendar and postponed until our December meeting. Is there any discussion?

(No audible response.) CHAIR BRYANT: Hearing none, is there

-- all in favor of that motion say aye. (Chorus of aye.) CHAIR BRYANT: Opposed, no? (No audible response.) CHAIR BRYANT: And is there a motion

on the one remaining item, Agenda Item Number 4B? COMMISSIONER CASH: So moved. CHAIR BRYANT: So the remaining item

on the consent calendar has been moved --COMMISSIONER WHITE: Second. CHAIR BRYANT: -- and seconded. All



11

1 234567 89

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 2021 22

in favor of that say aye? (Chorus of aye.) CHAIR BRYANT: Opposed, no? (No audible response.) CHAIR BRYANT: That is approved. So barreling on to the open session

agenda, we have three items. ACTION ITEMS - With Presentation

CHAIR BRYANT: Each of these items are simply approval of comments on concept designs. And we should be able to move through our agenda items today -- our open session items fairly expeditiously.

First item is Agenda Item 5A, and it's approval of comments for advised concept designs for the building exterior, vestibules, and other site improvements at the National Air and Space Museum. And it's brought to us by the Smithsonian Institution.

We have visited this a couple of times, I guess, the last year or so. It's a very exciting project. Ms. Lee, welcome.



12

12 3 4 5 6 7 89

10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22

MS. LEE: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. Before I start my presentation, I want to note that there is an amended EDR in front of you today. We added a note to Page 4 in the recommendations. But I will get to it when we cover that portion of the presentation.

So the Smithsonian has submitted a revised concept design for the terraces, landscape, and security vestibules at the National Air and Space Museum. This submission is part of a larger revitalization project.

Since 2014, the Commission has provided feedback on 24 mentioned presentations and two concept designs. And as the Chairman mentioned, the Commission has also conducted three site visits to the museum.

In July 2016, the Commission reviewed the first concept design which focused on the site improvements and security vestibules. Then, in July 2017, the Commission reviewed a revised concept and analyzed the building exterior storm



13

1 23 4 5 6 7 89

10 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 2122

cladding replacement options. Since the last review, Smithsonian has

significantly reduced the project scope due to building constraints. So today, we will describe the changes on the concept design. And the Smithsonian anticipates to come back for preliminary and final review in February 2018.

The project has six objectives, first it provide adequate waterproofing and structural support for the building, improve access and visibility between the museum and the National Mall, create a welcoming environment for visitors, provide programming on the museum grounds, reinforce the landscape, and accommodate increased visitation growth.

Here is the existing site plan. If you recall, the museum is -- the museum side site is approximately ten acres. The building sits on a terrace surrounded by planters which respond to topography changes.

So the topography of the site generally slopes from southwest here to northeast



14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89

10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22

here. So the side west is the highest point and is at the same level as the sidewalk, the same street sidewalk, while the northeast corner is the lowest point. And you can see the terrace is about six feet in height. Stairs and grounds provide access to the building from the street level.

The building terrace, which you can see highlighted in blue, must be replaced to address waterproofing issues affecting the underground parking. The red dash line shows the extent of the basement footprint.

So here is the diagram of the revised project scope. The blue color represents the extent of the changes to the existing terrace which now focus on the north and south entrances at the center of the site and also the west end of the site. The purple color shows the existing areas that will remain.

Here is the latest site plan. As you may recall, in July 2016, the Commission commented favorably on a concept design for the



15

1 23 4 5 6 7 89

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

landscape and security vestibules. The design still maintains the

continuous pedestrian loop around the building, which you can see here in pink, and also accessible grounds on each side of the central stairs of the building entrances, shown in orange.

The design team is now proposing six major changes to a previous site plan based on vital engineering. The changes include eliminating the fountain of the Delta Solar sculpture, changing the sculpture setting from a wet to a dry plinth, removing the south canopy along Independence Avenue, eliminating the solar panel away from the building's main roof, removing the corner entry plazas, in particular on the east end of the site, in particular on the east end of the site, increasing the tree spacing, as you can see here, and this results in fewer trees, revising the terrace shading material.

Here is the latest plan. As I



16

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9

10 1112 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22

mentioned before, the tree spacing has increased from 30 to 45 feet on center to provide the growth conditions and solar access to the ground plain. As such, less trees are proposed in this concept.

So now, as I explained the design in more detail, I will share our analysis. Staff analysis has been organized in two main categories, the west end of the site and the overall site.

Moving on to the west end of the site, staff finds that the west end of the site which contains the Delta Solar sculpture presents a significant opportunity to provide an active plaza space for the seven million people who visit the museum per year.

If successfully designed and programmed, the hardscape plaza could serve as an effective counterpoint to expansive lawn at the National Mall and contribute to the experience along 7th Street which directly connects downtown to the waterfront.



17

12 3 4 5 6 78 9

10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122

Here are historic pictures of the west end of the site. Staff notes that the Delta Solar sculpture was originally installed in a shallow reflecting pool on the west end of the museum in 1977, a year after the museum's opening.

The pool has not been operational since 1995 due to a leak into the garage below. However, the sculpture maintains its existing --its original configuration.

The picture on the right is a close-up view of the sculpture setting. Sculpture stainless steel panels rotate with the wind, and the west orientation relates to the afternoon sun. Therefore, staff finds that the reflection of the sculpture in the water is an integral part of the sculptural composition. The sculpture and its associated water feature contribute to a historic character of the museum on the National Mall.

Here you can see pictures of existing conditions. You can see the empty shallow pool.



18

12 3 4 56 7 8 9

10 1112 13 14 15 1617 18 19 2021 22

Staff notes that the July 2016 concept design, shown on the bottom left, included the relocation of the Delta Solar sculpture closer to the corner of Independence Avenue and 7th Street.

The proposal included the replacement of the shallow pool with a plinth that had a similar proportion to the original pool. The plinth functions as a water feature and an integrated perimeter security measure for the base of the sculpture.

The picture on the bottom right shows the current design. As you can see, the water feature has been eliminated. But the proposed plinth remains in the same location as the previous design.

Here is an enlarged plan of the proposed design. In general, the plan includes a new hardscape plaza surrounding the sculpture, as you can see here.

Three steep walls around the sculpture shades a low wall separating here the plaza and existing large exhibit area, a loading area for



19

1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

the museum. And you can also see the existing growth of trees to the north of the Delta Solar sculpture.

Here there is a section to the proposed plinth, the adjacent plaza here, and the loading area for large exhibits. So you can see the plinth will be 36 inches tall along 7th Street here, for perimeter security purposes, and 46 inches in here along the plaza. This is to respond to the topography changes while maintaining a flat surface for the sculpture. The plinth will be clad in black granite with a reflective finish.

Here is the proposed rendering of the southwest corner. Staff does not support the revised configuration of the Delta Solar consisting of a dry plinth without a water feature at the sculpture base. Because this setting does not create a welcoming entry to the museum or a usable plaza, and it negatively impacts the integrity of the sculpture.

Staff also notes that, since the



20

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

project's submission to NCPC and the Commission of Fine Arts reviewed two weeks ago, Smithsonian has committed to retaining a water feature for the Delta Solar which will be incorporated into the preliminary and final design.

I know that we have reflected this change on Page 4 in the amended EDR, however, staff's recommendation regarding the design of the plaza is still relevant. Staff recommends that the Smithsonian consider how this portion of the site could reinforce the network of active gathering spaces along 7th street and provide an amenity for the visitors of the museum.

Here are some inspiration of images of successful public spaces. We request that the Smithsonian submit a revised design for the west-end plaza that incorporates the following, a water feature that operates year-round and maintains the relationship with the Delta Solar, programming for outdoor events and passive recreation, benches, food vendors, movable tables and chairs, low impact paths within the existing



21

1 2 3 45 6 7 89

10 11 12 1314 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22

growth of trees, permeable pavers, views of the southwest corner, and interpretive signage for the Delta Solar.

We also recommend an integrated public space that incorporates the adjacent large exhibit access area, which is here, as part of the plaza composition as indicated in red.

Staff also recommends the Smithsonian evaluate the perimeter security along 7th Street and this edge to allow greater accessibility and visibility into the plaza and integrate elements that also function as public amenities.

Moving on to the overall site, as you may recall from previous site visits, there is a lack of seating around the perimeter of the site and not enough bike racks.

As the design develops, staff requests a street scape plan that incorporates the following amenities, benches located near bus stops, building entrances, and terrace corners at the sidewalk and terrace levels, bike facilities such as bicycle racks and a capital bike share



22

1 23 4 5 6 78 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1819 20 2122

station. Staff also recommends that the

Smithsonian work with the National Park Service to include the street scape to run with the museum consistent with the National Mall street scape manual where applicable.

The proposed design relocates the Ad Astra sculpture further to the north towards Jefferson Drive. The terrace -- the stairs will move further to the north to align with existing terrace walls. And staff recommends that the Smithsonian coordinate with NPS regarding the relocation of the Ad Astra sculpture to the sidewalk space along Jefferson Drive and ensure that the placement of the sculpture does not disrupt pedestrian flow and provides sufficient clearance for bus drop-off and pick-up areas.

Regarding landscape, staff notes that all paving, soil, and systems need to be removed to replace the terrace roof waterproof membrane.

One hundred and forty-seven of the 151 existing trees will be removed. Four trees will



23

1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 2122

remain. These four trees are highlighted in red and are located on the east and west end of the site outside of the basement footprint.

The proposal includes planting 116 new trees in addition to the four trees that will remain. This is 31 trees less than what currently exists today. Therefore, staff requests that the Smithsonian submit landscape plans at preliminary review that include tree replacement to prevent net loss of tree canopy in accordance with the procedure established in the policies related to tree canopy and vegetation in the comprehensive plan for the National Capital.

In terms of paving treatment, the design team has revised the terrace paving material from granite pavers to expose aggregate concrete to the areas shown in light gray. The dark gray, shown at the museum entrances, will continue to be granite. You can see an enlarged plan the proposed pavement treatment.

So moving onto the security vestibules, overall the north canopy continues to



24

1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 2122

have the same form of materials. And the Smithsonian has provided an updated lighting approach that respects the Capital at night.

You recall the last concept included a canopy on the south side of the museum. To accommodate the canopy, Smithsonian removed the existing Continuum sculpture which was placed there in 1976.

The design no longer includes the canopy. And the design team is proposing to keep the Continuum sculpture at the south entrance but slightly relocated to the center of the building. You can see that, in the existing conditions, the sculpture is off-center, and it approximately aligns with 6th Street.

Lastly, the current design eliminates the solar panels previously proposed on the building roof due to the potential impacts to the building structure and associated cost implications.

To conclude, it is the Executive Director's recommendation that the Commission



25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

provide the comments discussed throughout the presentation, including those related to the Delta Solar sculpture and improving the plaza at 7th Street and Independence Avenue by incorporating additional site amenities, a year-round water feature, and expanding the plaza to incorporate the adjacent exhibit access area.

Note that, since the project submission to NCPC and CFA's review on October 19th, 2017, Smithsonian has committed to retaining a water feature for Delta Solar which would be incorporated into the preliminary and final design.

Regarding the overall site, request a streetscape plan that incorporates site amenities such as benches and bicycle racks, recommends that the Smithsonian coordinate with NPS to improve the streetscape surrounding the museum and the relocation of Ad Astra, requests Smithsonian submit landscape plans that include the replacement to prevent net loss of tree canopy in accordance with the procedures of the



26

1 23 4 5 67 8 9

10 11 1213 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22

comprehensive plan. And with this, I conclude my

presentation. I'm available for questions the Commission may have. And the design team of the Smithsonian is here. Thanks.

CHAIR BRYANT: Thank you, Ms. Lee, very much. Are there questions or comments? We note that Ms. Trowbridge and her team are here, and I would hasten to remind you that there is a, as Ms. Lee noted, an addendum to the Page 4. Mr. Shaw?

COMMISSIONER SHAW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question on the solar panels. So is there a way for us to sort of approve them, and then if you don't use them they're still approved if you ever want to use them?

Like, I'm just, to me with, you know, administration priorities around these things and, you know, it just seems like it would be something you'd want to have approval for at some point in the future, and maybe coming back to us to approve something that you could have had



27

1 234 5 6 7 8 9

10 1112 131415 1617 1819 2021 22

approved already. Does that make sense? (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER SHAW: Okay, I'm sorry.

I'm thinking keep the authorization if you can, I mean, I'm sort of concerned about, even if you don't build it, you could have built it. And we knew you could have built it. So can we keep your chance to build it?

CHAIR BRYANT: Can we give you more flexibility?

COMMISSIONER SHAW: That was a very nice way of saying it.

CHAIR BRYANT: Please allow us. COMMISSIONER SHAW: That's why you're

the Chair. MS. TROWBRIDGE: Okay. Good

afternoon, Commissioners. We want to do --CHAIR BRYANT: You need to introduce

yourself just for the record. MS. TROWBRIDGE: I'm Ann Trowbridge

from Smithsonian Facilities. This is Colin MacKillop from Quinn Evans Architects.



28

12 3 4 5 67 8 9

10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122

We did want to do the solar panels on the roof. However, in evaluating roof systems as we got into our construction documents, we wanted the very best roofing system in terms of the membrane to protect our collections.

And that choice was not compatible with having the solar panels without totally redoing the structure all the way down to the foundation. So we had to make the choice to protect the collections with the better roof. And I don't know if -- Colin, if you can add to that?

MR. MACKILLOP: Sure. Yes, the reason why the roof membrane ties in with the installation of proposed photovoltaics is we had proposed a single-ply PVC membrane which would allow the brackets which support the PV panels to be -- some are just bonded right to the membrane itself. But because it's single-ply, there was concern that it's not durable enough.

When we shifted to a mod bit roof with a greater durability, that prevents that bonding



29

1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 131415 161718 19 20 21 22

detail to work. So we would have to fasten the bracket down which had an estimated number of 90,000 screw fastener penetrations.

Any kind of ballasted roof similar to the African American History and Culture Center, would require a significant upgrade to the structure. The existing structure is light weight and not designed to support any such load.

CHAIR BRYANT: So the areas that, while you are grateful for our offer of flexibility, you're likely not to be able to implement this. Is that what I'm hearing?

MS. TROWBRIDGE: Yes. CHAIR BRYANT: Doe that change your

suggestion, Mr. Shaw? (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER MAY: So as the proud

owner of a house with a mod fit roof and solar panels, it is possible. I mean, I know that you have the issue of penetrations. But, I mean, was there -- did you look at the possibility of actually having the structure that supports the



30

1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9

10 11 1213 14 15 1617 1819 20 2122

solar panels span from parapet walls? Because it looks like there is some kind of parapet wall up there.

MR. MACKILLOP: Well, we what we had looked at was dunnage that would be supported by the trusses below. In terms of spanning from one end to the other, that would lift it up above the parapets. When we had dunnage at an earlier presentation, that allowed the site lines to be maintained by keeping the top of the panels below the parapet.

We would be interested to accept a pre-approval to allow for that to be explored later. But at this time, it's not being pursued for the reasons you've heard.

COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. They save a lot of money in the long run.

MR. MACKILLOP: The cost of the investment would not provide a return in investment for the life of the installation.

COMMISSIONER MAY: Okay. Well, that's not so good.



31

12 3 45 6 7 8 9

10 1112 13 14 1516 17 18 19 20 2122

COMMISSIONER GRIFFIS: Oh, thank you. If we're done with solar, I don't want to interrupt anything.

I wanted to move on actually to your removal of the canopy at the south entrance. Because my comment is I find that very disappointing, especially in light of this morning a lot of us were just at the groundbreaking at the Eisenhower which is across the street.

Included in that, on how much else is happening in Southwest, I am down there all the time. It's hard ever to not see somebody lining up to get into that entrance.

I don't know all the facility requirements, but it seems to me having a secondary entrance might be very important, having that cover as was described, as I recall in the presentation, was to allow for basic weather covering.

But also I think this announces it so well. I mean, so much on Independence Avenue,



32

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9

1011 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22

and the Smithsonian, and other institutions along the avenue are waking up to the fact that there's the rest of the city here that they can connect to and that there's a reason to connect to it for all of our sakes.

Taking this away, to me, put it back into we really -- we've got a back door, and we're all supposed to face on the Mall. And that's really our importance.

So I don't know what we can do at this point, but I would urge strongly to reconsider this as a valuable item. Because I think it adds so much to the fabric of what you're really trying to do. And that's bringing people in and out of the building and around the building with ease. So that's my comment.

COMMISSIONER GALLAS: Can I ask one question? Thank you. Commissioner Griffis, I totally agree with you. I was heartened to see the addition of the water back to the art on 7th Street. But I was convinced, when we went on the original tour and so forth, that this was



33

1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9

1011 12 13 1415 161718 19 20 21 22

something that was going to provide function as well as beauty and fell in love with it.

And when I see the one to the north, which is also very beautiful, but it has limited function, because it essentially had no sun from the north. And so this is the one that would seem to have been saved over the other if you're choosing based on budgetary constraints.

CHAIR BRYANT: Ms. Trowbridge? MS. TROWBRIDGE: First of all, we

would like to maintain approval of the south canopy in the event that we could bring that back at a later date.

CHAIR BRYANT: Now you want it flexible.

(Laughter.) MS. TROWBRIDGE: Right. We would like

that flexibility. And particularly if there's ever -- the public authorities ever decide to widen the sidewalks at Independence, that would allow a little more space for canopies and visitor amenity on that side.



34

12 3 4 5 67 8 9

10 11 12 13 141516 17 18 1920 21 22

There is sunlight, quite a bit of sunlight on the north side, particularly in the summer months when the sun swings around. Roger has done extensive sunlight charts for his plant life. And it's hot on both sides.

The majority of visitors do enter from the Mall side. So that is favored. And that is where we wanted to bring the vestibule out from the building to both improve the security as well as to have that process occur before you entered the Milestones of Space Gallery where all our most -- many of our most precious artifacts are displayed.

CHAIR BRYANT: All right, comments? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIS: I just had a

quick follow-up question, because I wasn't understanding what the width of the sidewalk had to do with this entrance.

MS. TROWBRIDGE: Well, the whole sidewalk on the south side is a bit cramped between all the --

COMMISSIONER GRIFFIS: Yes, no



35

1 23 4 5 6 7 89

1011 12 131415 161718 19 20 21 22

question. MS. TROWBRIDGE: -- perimeter

security, the curb ramps, our perimeter security walls, and all the buses dropping off. It's tight. It would really benefit in the long run if we had more sidewalk, less Independence Avenue roadway.

COMMISSIONER GRIFFIS: But would that get us a canopy?

MS. TROWBRIDGE: It would make more space for that to occur in a less cramped fashion, I think, from a design standpoint --

COMMISSIONER GRIFFIS: Okay. MS. TROWBRIDGE: -- in the future.

But that would be my desire. CHAIR BRYANT: Mr. Gallas? COMMISSIONER GALLAS: Yes. So I'm

sure that the north side gets some sunlight. That's true. However, it would be difficult to argue that the south gets less sunlight than the north.

And I actually went through that door



36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89

10 11 1213 1415 161718 1920 2122

this morning at 11 o'clock. And it was hot, it was intense. And the more -- the higher temperatures and the more intense sunlight would come during the hours hitting the southern exposures than the northern exposures, if my science classes taught me something in those days.

MS. TROWBRIDGE: Right, right. COMMISSIONER GALLAS: I also

understood that this was a budgetary issue and not all the things that you mentioned.

MS. TROWBRIDGE: Oh, it's definitely a budgetary issue.

COMMISSIONER GALLAS: Okay. But you mentioned the sidewalk, you mentioned --

MS. TROWBRIDGE: Well, I'm saying --COMMISSIONER GALLAS: -- the front

door --MS. TROWBRIDGE: A future canopy could

be better with the wider sidewalk. COMMISSIONER GALLAS: But that's

really not our question. My question is why not



37

1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9

1011 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22

the south instead of the north? That's the question.

MS. TROWBRIDGE: The north is mainly -- has canopy. But the main function of the north is to create an outboard vestibule, you know, the enclosure with the security screening equipment. That structure is mainly that and has wings that also provide shade for people waiting outside.

But that is a different kind of structure than this one. And it has that purpose of getting the potential hazardous materials away from the collections, and the public inside, and also allowing a better visitor experience of going through that screening process before you're actually in the main gallery.

COMMISSIONER GALLAS: I guess I would say your sales from the last time you were here were much better than they are today. Because I was so enamored by the reasons behind the south one in particular.

MS. TROWBRIDGE: Yes. Well, in a



38

1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15161718 192021 22

large project as we have, with a limit on federal funding, we have to make choices. And some choices are things like the south canopy that you could come back and do in the future.

Other choices, if you don't do them now, you can never come back. So that's part of our decision making in how we approach the necessary alignment of scope and budget.

CHAIR BRYANT: So a question on the EDR. Ms. Trowbridge would like to maintain flexibility to do the best -- to do that on the south side. Does the EDR have to be amended to request, or recommend, or is there anything in here prohibiting --

MS. TROWBRIDGE: To encourage? CHAIR BRYANT: Yes. MS. KOSTER: I think it would be

desirable to amend. And if I could suggest --CHAIR BRYANT: Sure, please. MS. KOSTER: -- that you could request

that the Smithsonian retain the south entrance canopy as a desirable option if future funding



--

39

1 23 45 67 89

101112 1314 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

permits. CHAIR BRYANT: Ms. Trowbridge, is that

MS. TROWBRIDGE: That sounds acceptable.

CHAIR BRYANT: Agreeable? Is it --Mr. --

COMMISSIONER SHAW: I had one more question.

MS. KOSTER: Oh, yes. CHAIR BRYANT: Let's just park that a

moment or, okay, Mr. Shaw? COMMISSIONER SHAW: So I believe in

flexibility. But I'm also thinking about you're coming to us for the south campus, for the Castle, for the Smithsonian. And to me, to miss the opportunity to have these grand entrances, and we've been talking about that for the South Campus Master Plan for the Smithsonian Castle, that we just need to start looking at these moments.

This is one of those times where I



40

1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9

10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22

think we're being short-sighted and not seeing a collection of moments on the south now. They're going to build this up.

So I just want to reiterate one more time, and we shared this before, that the majority of our population now, even with the wharf now officially being open, is going to be sort of south of the Mall now. And how do we start to have an orientation that this is an amenity for the residents that live in southwest of the District?

And so I just, you know, want to strongly encourage again and hope we can find the funding. Because this really adds to a lot of the other things you're asking us to think about right now and really meets the needs, I think, of District residents in terms of both design and accommodation.

MS. TROWBRIDGE: Yes. Although I would note that in our total visitation, local, regional, visitors are about 15 percent. About 75 percent of Smithsonian visitors are from



41

1 2 3 4 5 6 789

10 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 202122

further places in the US, and about ten percent are international. So there will be a big increase in the visitors to the south. But within the grand picture of where our visitors come from, it's a big increase in the smaller percentage.

CHAIR BRYANT: Ms. White? COMMISSIONER WHITE: Help us

understand the choices you had to make. Because we don't want to see the value engineering engineer out the value of the public space. And there will be a lot of hotel rooms to the south as well. So when you say you've had to make these choices, just help us understand how this being eliminated --

MS. TROWBRIDGE: I may call on my colleagues here who are more involved. I have to say that this project started out as a mechanical and building system to replace another project.

(Laughter.) MS. TROWBRIDGE: And that is what it

still is in its essence. What happened though



42

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 1819 20 21 22

is, because the design of the museum, the return air plenums go up the exterior wall, and they were right behind that falling off, deteriorated cladding. We had to do the cladding and the systems together.

So although when you bring the pieces of the project to come NCPC here, it looks like a grand exterior street scape, you know, public amenity project. It's really about better protection for the collections, better visitor conditions inside in terms of, you know, sustainable mechanical systems, better security, a whole litany of things.

So the value engineering process that we go through is across all of these things, including many, many things that you don't see and that I don't even know much about.

But Mike Henry from our design team is -- our design management team at the Smithsonian is here. If you'd like to know a little bit more about the grand scope of the changes across the board that are really, I think, an expected level



43

1 23 4 5 6 78 9

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

of change in a project this large. MR. HENRY: Good afternoon. There is

a whole extended decision process that involves scores of people in order to rank the priorities for the various aspects of the project that were evaluated.

And as Ann adeptly put it, the heart of this project is an HVAC system replacement. We had no intentions of replacing the envelope. And so one thing leads to another. And you get to a scale of project where we now have to look at all the codes, and the code improvements. So obviously, code takes priority.

Anything that affects the main purpose of the project is a main priority. And as this was a feature that would -- in all intents and purposes, the museum really did want to keep it, there's a number of us that did want to keep it -- but when ranked against the other aspects of the project that pertained to code, and use, and sustainability, it did not rise to that level of muster for inclusion into the project.



44

12 3 4 5 6 7 89

10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22

It does remain as an option in the design. So it is something that will get priced when we provide it to the contractor. However, its award is, unless somebody comes and give a donation or the Congress feels exceptionally generous toward our project, the likelihood of its award is very reduced.

COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: That's a shame. I just have to add my voice to the chorus. That's a shame. Because this was -- I just think this design is so -- it was so difficult to get right, and you nailed it. And it's a shame, yes.

I mean, the elevation charts are just magnificent. It's too bad. And if you could get, you know, a special fundraising effort just for the south pavilion, that would be a winner. So I hope you do.

Because I think it's a real loss, not just for the aesthetics, obviously. And I take your point about the southern entrance. So pity those poor people coming in from wherever they come from in August to the south and waiting.



45

12 3 4 5 67 8 9

101112 131415 16 17 1819 20 2122

And as a final thing, the other piece of it is that it's a shame not to have it when the Eisenhower Memorial is going up across the street. Because I think that they would complement each other nicely.

CHAIR BRYANT: Other questions or comments? So, Ms. Koster, you want to repeat the proposed amendment for the Mina Wright Memorial southern entrance?

(Laughter.) COMMISSIONER WRIGHT: Not so fast,

Preston. Memorial, really? (Laughter.) MS. KOSTER: Request that the

Smithsonian Institution retain the south entrance canopy as a desirable option if future funding permits.

CHAIR BRYANT: I think Ms. Trowbridge is fine with that. Is there a motion on that amendment?

COMMISSIONER GALLAS: I would move that.



46

1234 56789

10 11121314 15 1617181920 2122

CHAIR BRYANT: It's been moved --COMMISSIONER WHITE: Second. CHAIR BRYANT: -- and seconded. All

in favor of that amendment say aye. (Chorus of aye.) CHAIR BRYANT: Opposed, no? (No audible response.) CHAIR BRYANT: It's adopted. So the

question now is on the EDR as amended. Is there a motion on the EDR as amended?

COMMISSIONER WHITE: So moved. COMMISSIONER DIXON: Second. CHAIR BRYANT: It's been moved and

seconded. All in favor of the EDR as amended say aye.

(Chorus of aye.) CHAIR BRYANT: Opposed, no? (No audible response.) CHAIR BRYANT: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Trowbridge. MS. TROWBRIDGE: Thank you. CHAIR BRYANT: Agenda Item 5B is



47

1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9

10 1112 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22

approval of comments on the concept design for the 11th Street Bridge Park submitted by the District Department of Transportation. Mr. Flis is with us.

MR. FLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, members of the Commission. The District Department of Transportation has submitted concept plans for the proposed 11th Street Bridge Park. This is for your review and comment.

You recall that the project came before you in the spring of 2016 as an information presentation. They are back here again and have, since that time, have been further developing the details of the park design.

So just as a reminder, the park is going to be located in southeast Washington D.C. It's highlighted here circled in yellow. This is immediately south of the Navy Yard and just north of Anacostia Park, which is controlled by the National Park Service, as well as Historic



48

1 23 4 5 6 78 9

10 11 12 13 14 1516 17 18 1920 21 22

Anacostia. The project goal seeks to reuse the

existing piers from the old 11th Street Bridge, which crossed the Anacostia River at this location, and create a new civic destination, a park that connects the surrounding communities.

So just by way of history, the Commission in 2011 approved the final design for the replacement of the old 11th Street Bridge. That project replaced a pair of 40-year bridges which crossed in this location to allow for stake enhancements and new ramp structures. And you can see here the plans for that project which the Commission approved.

So on the left here on the screen, you can see that old configuration and then, on the right, the new bridge configuration which has since been built and is operational.

And the old downstream bridge infrastructure, circled in red here, is the site of the proposed Bridge Park.

And this view from the river shore,



49

1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9

10 1112 13 14 1516 17 18 19 20 2122

this is the Anacostia Park, you can see the existing piers. They are highlighted in red.

Following the information presentation, which you heard, the project team conducted a feasibility study to further the design and also evaluate those existing piers. And through that study, DDOT found that the piers were in good condition, however, the loading demands expected by the initial design exceeded their capacity.

So as a result, the park design has been modified due to these changes but also as the project program and other needs have been identified and developed.

The proposed park, just to give you some context, will be accessible by a variety of different transportation modes. The Anacostia Navy Yard Metro Stations are both about a 20-minute walk. Of course, bus service is pretty frequent in this area as well.

No new parking will be provided for the park, however, there are several parking



50

1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9

10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122

garages in the area, including the Anacostia Metro Station which is to the southwest.

The park has four goals which you have heard previously, creating a healthy community be establishing a safe place for residents to exercise and play, connecting the community to the Anacostia River, connecting the neighborhoods of Anacostia, Fairlawn, Capitol Hill, and the Navy Yard, and also generating new jobs and economic activity.

From the beginning, community engagement and feedback has been a critical part of the design process in developing the principles and programming concepts. The Bridge Park therefore symbolizes a new connection across the river, stitching together booming areas of the city and those that have been previously overlooked. The park is also an example of the city working together with residents to create this new vision.

So through the engagement process, a number of proposed uses were identified. And



51

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9

10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22

these are listed here on the screen in front of you. And these have been incorporated into the park design, including performance spaces, public art, playgrounds, urban agriculture, and classrooms.

In March of 2014, the 11th Street Bridge Park staff organized a nationwide competition which was in part informed by those over 400 community meetings. Over 80 design firms submitted proposals. And after several months of a selection process, the competition jury selected the design by OMA and OLIN.

This winning team captured ideas from residents on both sides of the river to create a little X intersection creating a dynamic and multi-layered amenity for both sides of the river. So here on the screen, you can see the kind of concept on the top left and also a rendering of that winning design.

So as I mentioned, the project team conducted a feasibility study of that winning entry and has further evaluated the existing



52

1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

1011 12 13 1415 16 1718 19 20 21 22

piers. The resulting design, which I'll walk you through today, is substantially similar to the original concept with the major project components retained. But they have been -- the design has been slightly modified. So for comparison, I'll walk you through a few slides.

First, an aerial view of the winning design, and here is the current design. So you can see the bridge has been narrowed somewhat.

So here is a rendering of that winning design looking basically to the north. And then here again is the new design, again very close to the winning entry. It just narrows slightly.

Here is a view looking from Anacostia Drive to the north. Then here's the updated concept which is before you today.

Again, based upon that feasibility study, a new multi-column pier, as well as two additional support columns, have been added to the bridge structure to help support the overall program.

So walking quickly through the



53

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9

1011 12 13 14 1516 17 18 19 20 2122

components of the plan, I'm going to start at the roof level. This includes gardens, look-out areas, as well as open gathering spaces. The bridge deck level will incorporate an amphitheater, café, and play space.

And then at the pier level where it interfaces with the ground, the park will include a park space, an education center, an outdoor classroom, as well as a kayak launch area.

The revised design concept also further promotes pedestrian bicycle access. On the north side, pedestrians will access the bridge from the landing adjacent to the Navy Yard as well as the existing 11th Street Bridge.

On the south side, the bridge connects to the adjacent grade and past the ramps to allow access down to Anacostia Drive, Good Hope Road, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. And on the screen here you can see, highlighted in green, those access routes.

Staff believes both the north and south bridge landings are critically important to



54

1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22

allowing access to the park. These connections should be clear, safe, and comfortable for all park users. We understand that the Applicant is going to continue to develop the details for these connections prior to preliminary and final review by the Commission.

In particular, the pedestrian bicycle connections from the bridge across Anacostia Drive in that area should be improved, as a trail is located north of the road and would require a crosswalk at grade.

Because the bridge is elevated, another important issue is protection from the sun. The team has therefore emphasized a shaded route across the bridge including both built elements as well as landscape features to provide that path.

Through bicycle access will be primarily along the existing 11th Street Bridge which is at the top part of the image. Although a shared bicycle/pedestrian path will allow direct access to bridge programming, connections



55

1 2 34 5 6 78 9

10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22

will allow both bicycles and pedestrians to cross over from the existing bridge to the Bridge Park.

And here is another view that shows those connections so that the grades have been reconciled to these locations to allow that interface to happen.

In addition, the design has been updated to provide clear routes for emergency egress and life safety. And those are diagramed here. Again, these are the additional kind of program analysis that's happened since you last reviewed the project.

Other details continue to be developed, including the storm water management strategy shown here which will include cisterns and green roof areas. And the pallet of landscape and building materials across the park will also reflect the surrounding context including both river and other tactics.

Finally, as the design is further developed, additional information regarding the proposed lighting strategy will be particularly



56

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9

1011 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22

important. The bridge will be seen from a variety of locations at some distance. As such, the lighting level should be appropriate to meet the design needs while minimizing excess light as well as upward and horizontal light spillage.

As such, staff recommends the Applicant prepare a lighting plan, including picture details, color, illumination, and renderings for inclusion in the next submission.

The proposed bridge park intends to create a welcoming and vibrant space that enhances the user experience and fosters civic and local uses. Staff finds that this is consistent with many of the policies in the comprehensive plan.

Further, a high quality public route will reinforce Washington's national image as well as everyday experiences for residents and visitors. The Park will also promote waterfront access and highlight the Anacostia River's recreational, ecological, and scenic qualities.

I will also note that the Frederick



57

1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122

Douglass Memorial Bridge, also known as the South Capitol Bridge, is located less than a mile downstream. It is also going to be rebuilt with a new contemporary design. Both these bridges reflect a renewed emphasis on Washington, D.C. as a riverfront city.

The project team has coordinated with a number of federal and local agencies as well as the surrounding communities. Staff commends this outreach thus far and suggests those efforts continue as the project advances.

We do recommend further coordination with the Department of the Navy regarding any security impacts to the Washington Navy Yard on the north. And on the south end, the Applicant should continue coordinating with the National Park Service on elements within and adjacent to Anacostia Park, including the pedestrian and bicycle connections which I had mentioned earlier in the presentation.

I'll also note that the Applicant is still refining the limits of the project. And if



58

1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22

any transfers of jurisdiction are necessary between the Park Service and the District, those will need to come back before the Commission for review and approval.

Therefore, it is the Executive Director's recommendation that the Commission comments favorably on the proposed 11th Street Bridge Park, noting that the park will increase community connectivity and create welcoming and vibrant spaces that enhance the user experience and foster civic and local experiences, recommends the Applicant prepare a lighting plan, including fixture details, color, and illumination levels, requests the Applicant continue to coordinate with the Department of the Navy and the National Park Service, and notes that any transfers of jurisdiction from federal to District control will require review and approval by the Commission.

That concludes my presentation. I would be happy to answer any questions. And we have representatives from the project team who



59

1 23 45 6 7 8 9

10 1112 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 2122

are here as well. CHAIR BRYANT: Thank you, Mr. Flis, a

very exciting project. Mr. Griffis? COMMISSIONER GRIFFIS: Thank you, sir.

I had one technical question. On the existing bridge, there's overlooks. You have a picture of it in, like, Slide 6 or whatever it is, where you can actually walk out.

What happens to those? Do they connect into the new? I wasn't clear on that?

MR. FLIS: I believe they're actually removed as part of the project. So they're going to be -- there will be new overlooks, but the existing ones are removed to allow the new structure.

COMMISSIONER GRIFFIS: Yes, thank you. It was taken into account. Mainly, I think the lighting is critically important. And I absolutely would support no restrictions whatsoever, just go crazy. Because --

(Laughter.) COMMISSIONER GRIFFIS: -- it's a



60

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9

10 1112 13 14 1516 17 18 19 20 21 22

serious thing. And I have found, in some recent experience, that perhaps our controlling committees and jurisdictions, how do I say, shed a dim light on illuminating structures which actually I think --

Yes, yes. So anyway, I think there's been success, and I think a little bit of success is going to show by the time you get the lighting happening here. And I think it should be dynamic and exciting.

First of all, I think this is a great project. So don't take my next comments that seriously or with substance, except that I have questions about what this is connecting.

I enjoy, and I've been following this for a long time, the purpose of connecting communities. And certainly, literally, it's a bridge across the river that's connecting to it. I look at the starting point on one side and the starting point and ending point on the other side, and I'm wondering how you get into the community.



61

12 3 4 5 6 78 9

10 11 1213 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22

So is there -- what is the thought getting up to MLK and Good Hope right now? I see the paths. And it's a bit of walk. And you're going underneath the highway. Is there animation, or was there any thought of how to --or is that Phase 2?

And then on the other side, it's adjacent to a federal facility that has no public entrance or exit. It's a long walk to connect to any other established area or actually what I see as a developing area.

MR. FLIS: Well, I'll start, and then I know the project team can certainly jump in. There are certainly a number of challenges. I know on the north side, it is adjacent to the 11th Street -- the existing bridge as well as the Navy Yard.

The project team, I know DDOT has been working with the Navy Yard to do some installations, art installations. So it helps to activate that space and creates the option to walk down that location.



62

12 3 4 5 67 8 9

10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2122

The same thing on the south side, I know the National Park Service has recently worked to do some art installations. So at least it makes pedestrians aware that there's activities on that side.

Part of the development with the concept is actually to create these new paths which are on grades, a sloped grade, but is out from underneath the bridge. So you will have access from Good Hope Road through the paths.

COMMISSIONER GRIFFIS: My colleague made a comment right now that this is, I don't know if he minds me saying, but it's a destination park. And I totally agree. It's different than one of the analogies of other kind of parks like this that have been made in other cities. This is going to be different. This is unique, it's a destination. So my concern is, wanting it to be successful, if it's a destination how do you get people there?

CHAIR BRYANT: Oh, I'm sorry, yes? MR. KRATZ: If I can chime in. Well,



63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89

10 11 12 13 14 1516 17 18 1920 21 22

good afternoon. My name is Scott Kratz, I'm the director of the 11th Street Bridge Park, a project of the East of the River non-profit Building Bridges Across the River. And access is critically important. You're absolutely right. It's something that we've been thinking about from the beginning.

Even before we did the design competition, we actually worked with -- for an entire semester, some graduate urban planning students from Virginia Tech to do an entire three-month long walkability and accessibility study. And they identified some real key challenges.

We have created some pretty amazing barriers between humans and the waterfront over the last 30 or 40 years. And we're -- I'll answer that question two ways.

First, let me talk about the barriers and then where we see the direct access points can be. And I'll answer that directly.

Matt mentioned the several



64

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9

10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

interventions that we've been working on over the last 12, 24 months to try and use public art to provide little cookie crumbs to get people down. That's not going to solve everything, but we've installed three different works of art.

One, we've been working with the U.S. Navy Museum to install giant 15 foot-long historic images from the Navy on the 11th Street that, frankly, I think it's the most challenging space, because you're wedged between a security wall and a freeway on-ramp. It's not the most pedestrian-friendly existence.

Two, we've been working with the National Park Service and East of the River Artists, and students from Ballou High School in Ward 8, and Eastern High School in Ward 6 to install a series of four giant art installations along the Anacostia River Trail in Anacostia Park. Again, that isn't going to solve everything, but it makes it be a little bit more of a destination.

The most important we actually just



65

1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 1819 20 21 22

unveiled last month, and that's a collaboration that we had with the East of the River Anacostia Art Center. The entrance coming down Good Hope Road underneath the 295 underpass is an incredibly dark, frightening, grim I think is probably the best word for it -- the experience.

And we worked with DDOT to install these giant, lighted, art installations that are under there. It's 90 feet of linear art that's lit that will actually feature East of the River Artists. And the first artist is an East of the River Artist from Ward 7 who's been taking images of the Anacostia River for the last 20, 30 years.

So to answer your question directly, four points of access. One is you're coming down 11th Street, as we mentioned, and hopefully that art should at least help that effort.

Two is the river walk on the west side of the river that connects in front of --actually on the west side of the river, but in front of the Navy Yard. That's about a five-minute walk to Yards Park in the booming area



66

1 23 4 5 6 78 9

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 181920 21 22

down by the Navy Yard. Three is it connects into Anacostia

Park, as Matt mentioned, both along the Anacostia River Trail that, now I should mention, connects all the way up to Bladensburg. It just opened up last year.

And four, most importantly, I think, since we're connecting to the 11th Street local bridge, we're connecting to that 16-foot wide pedestrian and bike path. And that bike path goes over the tangled spaghetti mess of the 295 freeway and actually enters at the corner of Good Hope and MLK, right.

So that we see as a key entrance point into the heart of historic Anacostia. It was a long answer, but it was really important question.

COMMISSIONER GRIFFIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER DIXON: First of all,

Scott, we've been working -- Scott, you may want to come forward with us back for -- I guess since the beginning is at the Anacostia Coordinating



67

1 2 34 5 6 7 89

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Council for five years. And he knows that. I've talked to him pretty candidly about it.

I think this is an exciting magnet for resources and focus, and we wish him well, and I wish him well, and get real engaged, and trying to be supportive, and been supportive. He also knows I have a big concern.

I tried to get the Commission involved in many ways, and members of the Commission, in trying to focus at the green space below, the park itself, and trying to find ways to make it more accessible to the community east of the river through some bridges, and the underpass, and realigning the property, parking, the drive space, raising some of the barriers of the water so it will be better, limit flooding, unveiling some of the hidden streams that are in the park now, things that would make it an attractive point for our community, connect to our community, and also connect to the other community across the river and be a draw for it.

I just hope, and I've said this to



68

1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

10 1112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2021 22

Scott, that -- well, I'm going to ask him, maybe he'd want to speak to it -- how the things he's doing, which are not really the bridge but are coming from the bridge magnet and direction to do things on our side of the river, because that's my real concern.

Frankly, I would like to see the kind of resources that you can raise and can be raised to affect the green space, the park itself, more than anything else.

So there you might share some of the land issues you're working on that kind of faded, I think are good, and come out of this. And as one of the Commissioners that I spoke with just a moment ago says it can be not an and but an or --or not an or but an and. And I would like to see an and of this, not just an or. This is not the park itself, but you may want to share what you've done with that, please.

MR. KRATZ: Sure, thank you, Commissioner Dixon. And thank you for being part of this. I think it was five years ago when we



69

1 2 3 4 567 8 9

10 1112 13 14 1516 17 18 19 2021 22

were -- you came into a workshop that we were doing with local youth before we even did the design competition to design the park when we first met.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Right. MR. KRATZ: So I think what you're

getting at, and correct me if I'm wrong, but what's been really important from the beginning is that we're investing not only in this park but we're investing in the broader community, right.

We know that this -- every program element has been designed by the community, even the design team was selected, in part, by a larger group of community stakeholders.

But we know that these kind of big destination parks, I think, that were mentioned, will be an amazing amenity for the community but also can have intended and unintended consequences.

How do we make sure that the thousands, tens of thousands of people who helped shape this project from the beginning can



70

1 2 3 456 7 8 9

10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18 1920 21 22

continue to stay and thrive in place, right, particularly east of the river in your community, in Ward 8?

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MR. KRATZ: So we've worked with the

community to design, and many stakeholders of which of which I know you've participated in, on a larger equitable development plan that has 19 recommendations in three different categories, workforce development, that I know is close to your heart, Arrington, the affordable housing, and small business enterprises.

I won't go through all of those 19 recommendations, but we're standing up a community land trust, East of the River. How do we make sure we're collecting and holding deed restricted land now so that residents can stay and thrive in place?

We've started an East of the River home buyers club, a Ward 8 home buyers club that's seen 160 participants, 53 of which, Ward 8 residents, are now homeowners because of that



71

1 23 4 5 6 7 8 9

1011 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 20 2122

larger effort. How do we spend the next -- if we're

two, three years away from opening, or if we're a couple of years away from construction, how do we make sure that we're spending the time and resources making sure the residents around the park are at the capacity and skill set to apply for and succeed at construction jobs and then post-occupancy?

I'm happy to report that from the beginning LISC DC, a CDFI that's been active in the community, helped us with developing our equitable development plan. And when we announced those recommendations almost a couple of years ago, they said they wanted to help and do more.

And it was our honor to stand on the stage with them last year as they made a $50 million commitment, 5-0, into the one mile area around the Bridge Park.

We've since announced an additional $5 million investment from JPMorgan Chase to invest



72

1 2 3 4 567 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 151617 18 19 2021 22

in the community land trust small business enterprises east of the river, as well as workforce development strategies. So this has become much more than a park.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. COMMISSIONER GALLAS: This has become

a larger convener to draw resources to make sure those residents can stay and thrive in place.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes, I think that -- I wanted to make that part of the record so that, as we move forward, we see these things stay in place and still be strengthened by your project. And that's my hope, so it's an "and" situation not an "or." Thank you.

MR. KRATZ: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER WHITE: So I have so many

comments about this project. But the first is to commend Scott's leadership in driving that very intentional conversation.

And we've been talking about this for a number of years as well, back when I was in Chicago and since I've been in Houston. And I



73

1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 18 1920 21 22

think about your very astute comments about how people get to this and thinking about these big infrastructure reuse projects that start as connecters and then become destinations. This one has the potential to be a destination that will drive investment into communities.

And it is tough to get around freeways. And believe me, I know that better now having lived in Houston for little more than a year and working on Bayou Greenways. That's going to be 150-mile system of trails along the bayous, getting around railroad bridges and freeways.

And I think that this type of destination park, which I think through your programming and activation it will get done, will help drive investments in the same way we're seeing in Houston.

As each segment of bayou trail comes online, connections begin to form with communities that need to get to the bayou trail. And now we have a plan called Beyond the Bayou



74

1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 1415 16 17 1819 20 21 22

that's already driving future investment from the $220 billion Bayou Greenway system into these communities. So it does happen.

What I think is really unique about this project is Scott's and his team's commitment to learning from these other big infrastructure reuse projects. We're part of a network called the High Line Network, and looking at the High Line in New York, and some of the incredible impacts, and the well-documented research on the property values that increase on your next well-developed park that's happened in Chicago, and Seattle, and places around the country.

But it's those unintended consequences, and trying to think about those in advance in making your park system part of the economic driver and using that figure as a theme.

In this situation, I think it is the leader in the country right now in terms of what you've put in place, so my compliments. And the programming and activation that you're planning to draw people to the site, I think, will begin



75

1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9

1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22

to address the concerns, and very important concerns about what is this connecting to, how are people getting there? So kudos for the work that you've done. Thank you for being here.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chair, I want to add to what Beth has just said. We also recognize that this also can be a catalyst for gentrification.

COMMISSIONER WHITE: Yes. COMMISSIONER DIXON: And that's what

alarms many people in our community. And it also can be a buffer to it or a merger if we can find ways to be sure that the jobs, and the training, and the opportunities -- I guess that's why I was so concerned about the park itself where there are many, many job opportunities to work with it extended, ongoing.

And that means jobs where people can afford the housing that is in their community now. And so I think that's -- we want to make this a mitigator, not a catalyst for gentrification.



76

12 3 4 5 6 78 9

10 11 1213 14 15 16 1718 1920 21 22

We know it will come, it needs to come. Diversity is important, and we need it in our community all over the city, but definitely east of the river. But we want to be sure we try to protect those we can protect and keep them there as long as possible --

MR. KRATZ: If I can add one thing to that. I could not agree more. And I think it's important that the non-profit that's working with the city on this is based east of the river. I think that sends an important message.

And we need to practice what we preach. Half of my staff lives east of the river. They're third generation Washingtonians, right, in Ward 7 and Ward 8. And that will continue. So thanks.

CHAIR BRYANT: Mr. Shaw, and then Mr. Gallas.

COMMISSIONER SHAW: So, Mr. Chair, I actually want to talk about the design of the --surprise. I'm sort of confused. Because I feel like the integrity of the whole project's a



77

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9

10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22

little lost, because I'm seeing a whole lot of --it was meant to be built on the existing piers of the 11th Street Bridge. And the design sees the demolition of those piers and the addition of these new columns.

And so, you know, at some moment for me, you know, even if you have a design program, if you start telling me the integrity of that initial program is lost and we need to look at that, that's fine. But I'm not seeing the integration of historic piers that was the original concept.

And actually, I'm really concerned now that I'm seeing sort of big, clunky concrete piers going in now on the landing. So I would actually like to talk about the design, if you could do that for me.

MR. GUINTHER: Jim Guinther, with Whitman Requardt. So as part of the beginning of the job that we started out with, with BBAR and DDOT, and we took a look at the existing piers, working with Jason and Hallie from OMA and OLIN,



78

1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 1516 17 18 19 20 2122

to understand the concept, and understand the programming, and the loads that were going onto that.

First thing we did was do an existing condition of the existing piers, both above and below grade, and did existing research on the existing documents available, particularly the foundations that were out there.

As everyone knows, the existing bridge was an existing highway bridge. And one of the big drivers of this project was to not have a consistent width bridge from east to west. It was to have a bridge that varied in width as you came across to the Anacostia Park side.

And one of the smallest piers that's out there is Pier 14 which is where we had the 140-foot width that we recommended to reduce to 113. And the biggest reason is that the loads that were on those pilings were upwards of seven times what they could handle.

And that was primarily because of the width of the bridge, the loadings that were going



79

1 2 3 4 56 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1819 20 21 22

to be necessary to sustain, the snow loads and things that you would typically not have on a highway bridge, because it's cleared, and it's moved from that standpoint.

So we worked to understand the materials that we could put on there, understand the programming, and the functions that were going to be done there.

We did a fire/life safety analysis to understand what that meant, looking at the existing utilities that were underground, looking at the navigational waterway, meeting with National Park Service, meeting with MPD, Emergency Services, the Coast Guard, Army Corps, going through all of that and understanding that to narrow it allowed us to get some of the load down.

The Pier 14 and Pier 11, which were out there today, actually were cut down fairly significantly when they were removed as part of the 11th Street Bridge project.

They were also -- where the overlooks



80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1011 12 13 14 1516 17 18 19 2021 22

are on Piers 12 and 13, they would have to get modified as well. There is an existing heavy cladding that's on the existing piers today that's taking up a significant amount of the capacity of the pilings that are there. So we're trying to reuse those pilings by taking off some of that -- by taking that cladding off and bringing up columns that open up that area as well.

In the area where the new pier is placed on the Anacostia side, Pier 15 that we're talking about, that was originally where the Educational Center was planned to be located as part of the original concept.

That was located along the Anacostia River, and it was in the flood plain. And so it was going to originally have a base on the flood plain in that location in order to hold up that building.

By relocating it to the other side of the Anacostia Drive and putting it on that other location, we could open up the flood plain, get



81

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 1213 14 15 16 1718 19 20 21 22

that building outside of the flood plain, and above the flood plain elevation, which then allowed for a better access to the Bridge Park, allowed us to provide the support to augment what was needed for the existing Pier 14, and reconfigure it by moving the play space that was off of the site and bring it onto the bridge, which allowed it to engage better with the open air space around the café, and also to provide a destination point on the east side with the Environmental Education Center.

COMMISSIONER SHAW: So I'll just say two points. One, I still want to make sure we keep the integrity up. That's a brick wall piece too, because it looks like that's sort of gone away too.

That was the original -- I just -- it looks so much like a freeway underpass to me right now that -- and we have tried really hard, I know. We're activating and just li

· 1 NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION + + + + + COMMISSION MEETING + + + + + OPEN SESSION + +...

Documents

Transcript of · 1 NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION + + + + + COMMISSION MEETING + + + + + OPEN SESSION + +...