national capital planning commission – preliminary/final ... · pdf filegsa contract no....

PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT Do not remove this notice. Properly destroy documents when no longer needed.

GSA Contract No. GS-11P-11-MK-C-0045

Herbert C. Hoover Building Modernization

1401 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20230

National Capital Planning Commission – Preliminary/Final Submission

Perimeter Security Design

Project Narrative

06 June 2013

RTKL Associates Inc.

2101 L Street NW, Suite 200

Washington, DC 20037

202-833-4400

GSA Contract No. GS‐11P‐11‐MK‐C‐0045 06 June 2013 Herbert C. Hoover Building Modernization Perimeter Security Design RTKL Associates Inc. TOC ‐ 1


Herbert C. Hoover Building Modernization

Project Narrative – NCPC Preliminary/Final Submission

Table of Contents

Table of Contents …………………………………………………………………………………….…TOC-1

I. Purpose of the Report ………………………………………………………………………………………. 1

II. Project Scope and Goals …………………………………………………………………………………... 2

III. Groups and Individuals Involved ….……………………………………………………………………….. 3

A. General Services Administration – National Capital Region

B. General Services Administration – Office of the Chief Architect

C. Department of Commerce

D. State Historic Preservation Office – District of Columbia

E. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

F. National Capital Planning Commission

G. Commission of Fine Arts

H. RTKL Associates Inc.

IV. General Description …………………………………………………………………………………………. 4

A. Project Location

B. Overall Building Size, Configuration, Character

V. Proposed Interventions ……………………………………………………………………………………… 5

A. 14th Street Main Entry

B. Pennsylvania Avenue and White House Visitor Center Entry

C. Urban Environment, 14th and 15th Streets

D. Constitution Avenue

E. Vehicle Entry

F. Constitution Avenue and National Aquarium Entry – potential future changes

VI. Appendix – Community Participation

VII. Appendix – Stormwater Management Calculations

VIII. Appendix – Section 106 Documentation: Memorandum of Agreement

IX. Appendix – Graphics and Drawings

GSA Contract No. GS‐11P‐11‐MK‐C‐0045 06 June 2013 Herbert C. Hoover Building Modernization Perimeter Security Design RTKL Associates Inc. Page 1


I. Purpose of the Report

The renovation of the Herbert C. Hoover building is an immense undertaking to improve, restore, and maintain one of the nation’s largest national landmark buildings owned by the GSA. The building is the headquarters for the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), and is also home for the National Aquarium and the White House Visitor Center (WHVC).

The purpose of this report is to document the perimeter security design requirements, relative to all issues related to the Herbert C. Hoover Building Renovation. Completed in 1932, the Hoover Building was designed by York and Sawyer and deemed the world’s largest office building upon completion. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the Herbert C. Hoover Building houses the Department of Commerce, the White House Visitor’s Center and the National Aquarium. It is located between 14th and 15th Street, and Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenue. The structure contains seven stories, with additional basement and penthouse levels and over 1.2 million square feet of office space.

The General Services Administration (GSA) is currently undertaking a renovation of the facility. This process includes a complete renovation of the existing building, as well as upgrades to mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire and life safety systems. These alterations present a particular challenge to the preservation of the building’s character; modern infrastructure must be provided and building codes must be met without compromising the historically significant and character-defining elements of the building. The major modifications to the Herbert Hoover Building, described above, have been previously reviewed and approved by NCPC, CFA, and DC SHPO. The construction of the modernization project is phased through year 2021; the project is currently beginning the construction scope included in the third phase of the project. The Perimeter Security Design is being presented for review, and construction is scheduled to begin at the completion of Phase 3 of the project’s construction. The Perimeter Security Design solution presented remains sensitive to the building’s monumental and historic Beaux Arts character, while exhibiting a contemporary and appropriate approach, though scale and material, to the issue of providing a secure boundary about the building.

This narrative focuses on design development – level design solutions for an ISC-Level-4-rated perimeter around the Herbert C. Hoover Building. The narrative gives attention to the beneficial and adverse effects of the proposed design solutions. It is understood that the proposed exterior modifications are also subject to review by CFA and DC SHPO. This report is presented in support of Preliminary / Final review requirements for Perimeter Security.



II. Project Scope and Goals

The primary goal for the Hoover Building Perimeter Security project is to provide an ISC Level 4-rated perimeter around the building. The main objectives of the design are to provide a scheme that both meets the security requirements identified by the ISC and the Department of Commerce, complements the style and scale of the building and site, and introduces improvements to the public realm. The site has special importance because of its proximity to White House and Ellipse, the location of visitor destination points at the Constitution Avenue side and Pennsylvania Avenue side, as well as its prominence in the Federal Triangle.

In April 2012, GSA submitted a concept design for perimeter security located at the building yard to the National Capital Planning Commission and Commission of Fine Arts. As GSA began to refine the concept design, it became clear that attempts to simplify and minimize the visibility of perimeter security were developing instead into a fragmented collection of disparate individual parts. The building’s unusually long elevations, the rhythmic repetition of architectural elements they contain, and the narrow building yard that surrounds them make this a particularly challenging project. After careful thought, GSA asked RTKL’s design team to revisit the basic premise of perimeter security in this case, given its challenging physical limitations, important location as a thoroughfare connecting the downtown and national mall, and heavy pedestrian traffic on 14th and 15th streets.

The potential impact of the perimeter security elements to the Hoover site and to the overall character of the Beaux Arts building will be minimized by the scale, material, and location of the security elements throughout the project’s site. The primary security installation, a cable rail system, will be concealed by stone-clad walls and piers, which will be kept to a minimum height to meet the security requirements. Utilizing a rated cable rail system as the primary security barrier allows for a lower-height requirement to achieve the desired rating. It also allows for longer spacing between vertical elements, which helps to eliminate surface clutter and allows flexibility for coordination of below grade elements in an already-developed site. Portions of the cable system will be clad to appear as solid walls, and will be broken by a series of low metal fence panels. The panels allow for a sense of transparency and provide a visual connection to the lawns within the building’s yards.

Detail is taken to describe the existing site conditions and the proposed perimeter security improvements. Enlarged plans, with elevations and eye-level perspective views are provided for each major façade, pedestrian and vehicular entry treatment proposed within the garden wall scheme.

The EA that was completed in 2009, has been revised to include the proposed changes to Pennsylvania Avenue and other revisions as needed. The public review period for the revised EA and FONSI will be completed in June 2013. The Section 106 process has been completed concurrent with the NEPA process, finalized in May 2013.



III. Groups and Individuals Involved

A. General Services Administration – National Capital Region

Project Executive: Tyrone A. Anderson

Senior Project Manager: Robert ‘Skip’ Vaughn

Regional Historic Preservation Officer (Acting): Gary Porter

B. General Services Administration – Office of the Chief Architect

GSA, Chief Architect: Leslie L. Shepherd, AIA

GSA, NCR Chief Architect: Antonio Alonso

Director, Center for Historic Buildings: Beth Savage

C. Department of Commerce

Deputy Director, Office of Space and Building Management: Douglas Elznic

Chief, HCHB Renovation Project Division: Larry Hess

Senior Project Engineer: Bryan Carnahan

D. State Historic Preservation Office – District of Columbia

DC State Historic Preservation Officer: David Maloney, AIA

E. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Office of Federal Agency Programs Executive Director: John Fowler

F. National Capital Planning Commission

Executive Director: Marcel Acosta

G. Commission of Fine Arts

Secretary: Tom Luebke, AIA

H. National Park Service

Deputy Associate Regional Director, National Mall and Memorial Parks: Doug Jacobs

I. RTKL Associates Inc.

Vice President: Rod Henderer, FAIA, LEED AP

Project Manager: Aimee Woodall, AIA, LEED AP



IV. General Description

A. Project Location

Located in the northwest quadrant of Washington, DC, the Herbert C. Hoover Building is situated on 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues. At the time of its completion, this seven-story structure was declared the largest, single office building in the world, with overall dimensions measuring 325’ (99m) by 1050’ (320m). Additionally, it contains over 1.2 million square feet (111,485 square meters) of office space. The classical Beaux-Arts design of this monumental public building formed part of the Federal Triangle, an ambitious urban planning endeavor, which included 70 acres of land bound by Pennsylvania Avenue, the National Mall, and the South Grounds of the White House.

York and Sawyer’s design for the building illustrates the renewed interest in L’Enfant’s 1791 plan for Washington, DC as well as the influence of the City Beautiful Movement, which had gained popularity near the end of the 19th century. The emphasis on monumentality, horizontality and classical detailing evident in the design of the Hoover Building corresponds with the return to a grand, more cohesive urban plan for the city, appropriate for the capital of the nation. The choice of a site within the Federal Triangle was also strongly influenced by the L’Enfant Plan. The Federal Triangle was advocated in 1902 by the McMillan Commission, which included Frederick Law Olmsted, Daniel Burnham, Charles McKim and Augustus St. Gardens. This collection of federal buildings, unified in design and set within a triangular tract of land, was based both on European precedents as well as the L’Enfant Plan developed a century prior. The site for the Hoover Building was finalized in 1927 and required extensive coordination among York and Sawyer and several architectural firms who were involved in the design of adjacent buildings.

B. Overall Building Size, Configuration, Character

The plan of the Hoover Building is rectangular and symmetrical, employing interior courtyards to increase the light and air afforded to office spaces within. Each façade is organized vertically through the use of a two-story, rusticated limestone base, a three-story limestone masonry mid-section or shaft, a pronounced cornice at the sixth floor level and a mission tile gable roof above the eighth floor attic story level. Original architects York and Sawyer utilized building setbacks and a large central colonnade along the east (14th Street) façade and a series of protruding colonnaded porticos along the west (15th Street) façade in order to relieve the uniformity of these long elevations. The north and south facades each had a single, framed colonnade stretching nearly the entire length of the elevation between the third and fifth floor levels. Window designs vary with the size of the openings, as do lintel designs at each story of the building. The building detailing, influenced by the Second Renaissance Revival, includes a Vitruvian scroll course above the limestone base, decorative pediments above the windows, carved inscriptions and ornamental bronze doors and light fixtures. The building also features sculptures by James E. Fraser.

The Hoover site sits on a city block bounded by 14th and 15th Streets to the east and west, and Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues on the north and the south. The site’s proportions are approximately 3:1, with the long side of the site running north-to-south. Existing lawn panels run along the long sides of the building and vary only slightly in grade. They are broken only by pedestrian and vehicle entries along 14th and 15th Street. A large, main entry plaza sits in the center of the 14th Street façade of the building. Similar lawn panels, flanked by symmetrical entry doors, are found on the south side of the building at Constitution Avenue. The White House Visitor’s Center is the primary focus of the north side of the building. The north side of the site is predominately paved for pedestrian access to the visitor program located inside. Existing eight-inch square pavers provide a consistent paving surface along the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor of the Federal Triangle. These pavers will remain in the project, with little modification to the Pennsylvania Avenue streetscape. For consistency within the Federal Triangle along Constitution Avenue, the existing exposed aggregate sidewalk and brick banding at tree boxes will also remain, with little or no design modification. Within the bounds of the property line, the Hoover site measures 36,410 square meters (391,900 SF), approximately 80% of the area bounded by the city streets.



V. Proposed Interventions

A. A. 14th Street Main Entry

At the main entry to the Hoover Building, two 34” tall symmetrical raised planter beds are proposed to flank either side of the 24”-above-grade existing plaza. The planter beds will be bordered by a granite seat wall on all four sides, and will be planted with seasonal flowering plant species that are appropriate for the region. The granite of the seat wall will match other granite-clad assemblies within the perimeter security concept. The proposed granite will match the existing granite water table that is visible on all four elevations of the building. The seat wall will conceal two accessible entry ramps that flank the main entry plaza, and will allow visitors to safely interface with the planter beds along their entire perimeter. The eastern-most wall of the beds will be constructed of reinforced concrete, fully concealed within the granite cladding, and will provide the level of protection required to meet security needs. Both beds will serve as public focal points, providing places for pedestrians to sit, consistent with NCPC’s Framework Plan which encourages the introduction of more vibrant street life along long city blocks lacking ground floor activity. The Framework Plan also addresses this issue by encouraging the “Reinvention of Civic Corridors and Urban Spaces”, specifically recommending:

To create an inviting atmosphere and energize the public realm, public spaces should be programmed and provide amenities for pedestrian safety and comfort including: shaded seating and furnishings that encourage conversation and people-watching; water features to cool hot temperatures, muffle noise, and invite contemplation; appropriate lighting to improve perceived safety; consistent wayfinding information; and access to restrooms and refreshments. Landscape features and plantings provide seasonal interest and delight. Public art, interpretive exhibits, and learning opportunities should be encouraged to add another layer of human engagement within the public realm.

The raised planter beds will support the hierarchy of the plaza and 14th street main entrance and distinguish it as a place of importance within the building’s architecture. The introduction of the raised planter beds at the main entrance of the Hoover Building will help to create a more articulated mid-block urban space, responding as it does to the Ronald Reagan Building (RRB) across 14th Street. Pedestrian movement from east to west will also be encouraged by creating a destination, of sorts. More importantly, the design is intended to encourage and accommodate an increase in the north-south pedestrian traffic along 14th and 15th streets that is anticipated as a result of the completion of the National Museum of African American History and Culture located directly across Constitution Avenue from the Hoover Building.

A row of reinforced bollards, sleeved in black-anodized aluminum and matching others in the proposed perimeter security concept, will run between the beds. The bollard height will be 36” above grade, spaced 5’ on center. Two new flagpoles are proposed within the bollard line; the poles will be sleeved over rated bollards, thus making the flagpoles themselves will act as rated elements and breaking up the visual impact of the long line of bollards.

Also at the main entry, the street tree canopy will be reintroduced by the addition of ten new street trees in tree boxes located near the curb line. Bicycle racks, accessible to both visitors and employees of the H.C. Hoover Building will be installed between the new street trees. The new bicycle racks will comply with D-DoT standards in type and layout.



B. Pennsylvania Avenue and White House Visitor Center Entry

The existing lawn panels flanking the east and west sides of the Pennsylvania Avenue perimeter will be elongated to replicate the original site plan at this location. The existing low-planter beds will be extruded up to provide a raised planter bed on either side of the WHVC entry. The north wall of the raised planters will be constructed of reinforced concreted, clad entirely in granite, and will provide the required rating for the desired security level. Lower walls will bound the other three sides of the planters, creating seat walls immediately adjacent to the entry doors of the WHVC. A low-growing dense evergreen material will be planted in the raised beds and mulched. Existing exterior light poles at the WHVC Entry will be reinforced to act as part of the secure boundary. Bollards, both fixed and removable, will be added to the space between the light fixtures and planter beds to complete the secure perimeter. On the east and west ends of the north elevation, the security barrier will transition from solid wall to stone and metal clad cable rail fence, allowing a sense of transparency into the building lawn. A full description of the cable rail fence system is provided in paragraph C of this section. Meeting minutes from two work sessions with representatives from the National Park Service (including representatives from National Mall and Memorial Parks and White House Visitor Center), are included in this report in Part VI, Appendix – Community Participation.

C. Urban Environment, 14th and 15th Streets

At the ground floor of the Hoover Building, the footprint resembles three separate buildings, divided along 14th and 15th Streets by two large courtyards that serve as surface parking (see paragraph E below describing treatment at vehicle entries). At the north and south ends of both 14th and 15th Streets, a cable-rail fence is proposed as the perimeter security treatment. The proposed fence has been located between the building’s property line and the curb line, 10 feet inside the back of the curb on 14th Street and nine feet from the back of curb on 15th Street. The proposed fence location is on the curb-side of the sidewalk, and allows the sidewalk width to be increased on 15th Street to accommodate congregation of visitors coming and going from the White House, downtown attractions, and the National Mall. Direct hardscape connections are provided between the curb and the sidewalk, through wide openings in the fences, called lead walks. The lead walks are located at multiple planned locations on all sides of the building to allow pedestrian access from parked vehicles where necessary.

A series of public seating areas are proposed within the building yards at the north and south ends of the 14th Street and 15th Street. On 15th Street, the seating nodes are 15’ wide and approximately 9’ deep, and will feature street furnishings sited in a conversational layout. Because the building yard is much narrower on 14th Street, the seating nodes are 15’ wide by approximately 7’ deep. All of the seating nodes will be paved with a permeable paver, and are large enough to accommodate two or three benches. The seating nodes are surrounded on three sides by native plant species. This will encourage visitors and employees alike to pause in an improved outdoor space. In the building yard, seating areas will be divided by new landscaping that is consistent with previously approved site plans. Sidewalks will be re-paved with exposed aggregate concrete, consistent with DC standards for paving in the Federal Triangle.

At the north and south ends of 14th Street, bicycle racks will be provided adjacent to the corners of the site. Potential Capital Bike Share station locations have been considered by D-DOT along the curb line within the center section of 15th Street; however, placement of Bike Share in this area would require removal of at least two street trees. The Project Team, along with D-DOT, has determined that the tree canopy will prove a greater amenity to the site than the Bike Share station. At the curb line along the streets, an exposed-aggregate carriage way measuring 2’ in width will be installed to allow for safe passage between street parking and lead walks/sidewalks.

With the exception of a large elm tree at the south end of 15th Street, all of the existing street trees along 14th and 15th Streets will be removed and new trees planted in a manner consistent with urban forestry and current landscape standards. Many of the existing trees show sign of decay, tree canopy reduction and die back at the ends of many of the branches. The holistic replacement of the existing



street trees provides the opportunity to restore the entire tree canopy within the block, and re-establish the original design intent. The replacement of the street trees also includes the replacement of the existing soil, with fresh, friable loam and topsoil. As described in NCPC’s plan, “The urban forest can also help create a sense of place in Washington’s city center and provide a more pleasant pedestrian experience.” Street tree replacement will also require the project to reposition the existing street trees to 30’ on center, coordinated with street light locations at 60’ on center.

In addition to the replacement of the existing street trees and associated soil, portions of the existing tree plantings along the curb line will be incorporated in a green infrastructure system proposed along the 14th and 15th Streets sides of the building. This Low-Impact Development system includes the modification of the existing curb line in order to permit storm water into the tree plantings, capturing and slowing the runoff from the site. This approach reduces the peak load on the existing combined storm and sanitary sewer system during storm events. Low impact development at the street curbs, in the form of bio-retention planters, will be designed in accordance with D-DOT’s most current draft standards for L.I.D. in urban environments. Special consideration for salt and pollutant tolerances will be given in the selection of plant material in these areas. Suggested plant species include a variety of drought-tolerant perennials which will also eliminate the need for a permanent irrigation system. Calculations documenting the site and street run-off reduction are found in Appendix 2 of this Narrative, which also contains a more comprehensive description of the system and method to perform the calculations.

The cable-rail fence in this location will provide the required ISC Level 4 security rating. The portions of the cable rail fence proposed within the public space have been simplified in material and design components, to be compatible to the public space and sympathetic to the existing building. The upper rail is 30” above grade, with support posts located 10’-12’ on center. A lower rail is 22” above grade. The intermediate posts are simple vertical elements that are clad in black-anodized aluminum, to match the aluminum sleeve cladding of the cables. The fence terminates into stone clad terminal piers, which are the same geometry and finish as the terminal piers found in the system located at the building yard.

On the protected side of the fence, 10’-wide sidewalks are accented by the seating areas described previously. In order to maintain unimpeded pedestrian circulation along the length of the block, the sidewalks are left open and free of security elements. At eight locations where the perimeter line traverses into public space, the cable fence and rated wall systems overlap each other in a parallel fashion on each side of the sidewalk, for approximately twenty-two feet. This overlap provides additional security, and makes it difficult for a vehicle to maneuver into the building yard beyond. It is also at these eight locations that a collapsible sidewalk was previously explored. Further investigation and development has found the collapsing sidewalk installations unnecessary to meet the ISC Level 4 rated barrier. After crossing the vehicle courtyard on both streets, the perimeter security line moves back to the location of the building’s property line. On 14th Street, the perimeter security is provided by the raised planter beds and bollards, as described earlier.

Along the center section of 15th Street, the perimeter security will also be provided by a cable-rail fence system consisting of aluminum rails and stone clad piers. The stone piers will be broken by simple aluminum cladding of the two cable rails; the simple cladding allows for a sense of transparency and provides a visual connection to the lawns within the building’s yard. Like the fence described in public space, the aluminum rails will be a black-anodized finish. Unlike the aluminum posts in the public space, the vertical interim posts at the building yard will be clad in dimensional-stone granite, and the base of the fence will be connected by a 4”-tall continuous granite curb that separates the sidewalk from the building’s lawn panel. Solid ends of walls and piers will be kept to a minimum height to meet the security requirements. A subtle change in fence design, along with the change in the location of the fence, is proposed to provide variety to the pedestrian throughout the near quarter-mile expanse of the 15th Street facade.

Instead of creating a monotonous linear boundary outlining flat lawn panels, security enhancements as proposed for the Hoover Building will animate street activity by significantly enhancing the pedestrian experience. Improvements to public space, including replacement of deteriorating sidewalks and



declining street trees on 14th and 15th Streets, are included in the project. The nearly quarter-mile east and west facades of the building, together with the building’s very shallow yard and wide vistas available from the Ellipse and Ronald Reagan Building conspire to create a difficult design problem that is uniquely challenging. Remaining solely within the building yard, while sound urban policy, creates in this case a monotonous, linear pedestrian experience that also deteriorates the quality of this historic building’s monumental façade. Perimeter security as proposed will not only do justice to the architecture of the Hoover Building, but improve the pedestrian experience, as well.

D. Constitution Avenue

Along the south block of the Hoover Building on Constitution Avenue, a similar cable fence and wall treatment will be provided at the existing building yard. Reinforced stone walls will provide transition at the building yard corners, and will anchor the cable rail fence ends. Stone-clad interim vertical posts will support the two-cable fence system, just as they do along the center section of the 15th Street façade. At the two entrances on the east and west sides of the façade, 36” tall bollards spaced at 5-feet on center will allow porous access to the building’s employees. The planting of the building yard along Constitution Avenue will be a continuation of the adjacent yards on 14th and 15th Streets. Existing sidewalks, street tree boxes, brick paving borders, and street trees will be maintained on Constitution Avenue, to allow for consistency of the Avenue throughout the Federal Triangle.

E. Vehicle Entry

Vehicles will enter the 14th Street and 15th Street drive court parking lots via a pop-up style vehicle barrier. The proposed location of the vehicle barriers is twelve inches inside building’s property line. To protect the space between vehicle barriers, typical 36” tall bollards spaced 5’ on center will be introduced. The pop-up style vehicle barrier that is proposed is contemporary and light in style, resembling an inverted “u” when engaged in the upright position. This style of barrier is currently approved or installed at the National Gallery of Art and also the U.S. Department of State.

F. Constitution Avenue and National Aquarium Entry – potential future changes

The relocation of the National Aquarium to the south side of the Hoover Building has been approved at a concept level by all parties involved in the modernization project; however, the final funding to relocate the aquarium is unavailable. Should the project proceed, the southern-most wall of the aquarium entry ramp and stair will be reinforced as the secure perimeter. Two bollards will be placed at the top of the ramp and the stair. Flanking the aquarium entry are two secondary building entrances; each of the secondary entrances will be protected by a short line of bollards. Adjacent to the secondary entry points are symmetrical lawn panels; at this location the garden wall will be placed at the building’s property line and transition around the corners to the long facades of 14th and 15th Streets. The transition at the corners will be similar to the transition along Pennsylvania Avenue.

GSA Contract No. GS‐11P‐11‐MK‐C‐0045 06 June 2013 Herbert C. Hoover Building Modernization Perimeter Security Design RTKL Associates Inc. Appendix – Community Participation


VI. Appendix – Community Participation

May 16, 2013: DCOP, D-DoT Preliminary Design Review Meeting (PDRM)

The purpose of the Public Space Preliminary Design Review Meeting (PDRM) was to allow the Project Team to present the Perimeter Security design to reviewing members of the Public Space Regulation Administration, to evaluate and discuss perimeter security elements located in public space. The documentation from the meeting is included in this appendix.

April 23, 2013: DCOP, D-DoT, CFA, NCPC, Section 106 Consultation

On April 23, 2013, the project team met again with representatives from DC Office of Planning (DCOP), the DC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the District Department of Transportation (D-DoT). The purpose of the meeting was two-fold: part 1 of the meeting included Section 106 Consultation; part 2 of the meeting included discussion of design progress, specifically focused on response to previous comments and to design of elements in Public Space. Generally, all attendees spoke favorably of the design progress, without major objections. Representatives from CFA, DCOP, and DC SHPO encouraged additional design study at the terminal condition where the cable fence in public space engages the collapsible sidewalk. D-DoT representatives requested that the carriageway at the curb be constructed of exposed aggregate concrete to match the sidewalks, in lieu of granite paving materials. A copy of the sign-in sheet documenting meeting attendees is included in this appendix.

March 27, 2013: DCOP, D-DoT, CFA, NCPC

The Project Team met with representatives from the District Department of Transportation (D-DoT), the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), together referenced in these minutes as the Consulting Team, to review the design progress of the Perimeter Security concept, and to discuss design options for the perimeter security elements proposed in Public Space. The documentation from the original meeting is included in this appendix.

March 12, 2013: NPS Coordination

The project team met with personnel from the National Park Service to review the proposed new Perimeter Security concept. The documentation from the original meeting is included in this appendix.

March 11, 2013: DC SHPO, Section 106 Consultation

The purpose of this meeting was to review the original MOA and discuss the revised Perimeter Security design solution, as it relates to the Section 106 process, proposed mitigation, and revisions to the existing MOA. The documentation from the original meeting is included in this appendix.



March 5, 2013: DCOP, D-DoT

The Project Team met with representatives from the District Department of Transportation (D-DoT) and DC Office of Planning (DC OP), referenced in these minutes as the Consulting Team, to review the design progress of the Perimeter Security concept, and discuss design options for the perimeter security elements proposed in Public Space. The documentation from the original meeting is included in this appendix.

January 09, 2013: DCOP, DC SHPO, D-DoT, NCPC

On January 09, 2013, the project team met again with representatives from DC Office of Planning (DCOP), the DC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and the District Department of Transportation (D-DoT). Representatives from NCPC joined the meeting held at GSA’s Regional Office Building in SW DC. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss comments provided by the agencies following the previous (November 28, 2012) meeting, and to informally present the newest revisions to Department of Commerce Perimeter Security concept proposal to the meeting attendees. The design review focused again on the areas of 14th and 15th Streets, where perimeter security is proposed in public space. The design team reiterated to the meeting participants that the revisions are a result of the project team to provide improvements to the public experience at the street level of the Hoover Building; the relocation of perimeter security elements into public space is not related to DOC building standoff concerns. Comments are as follows:

- Elements in the public realm, specifically between the curb and the sidewalk, should be consistent with DC standards for furnishings, lighting, etc. in the public realm.

- Use of collapsible sidewalks, in lieu of bollards, is preferable when possible. D-DoT considers bolllards crossing the sidewalks to be problematic, as they infer an extension of the building yard into public space and, when combined with the fence in public space, may appear to create a private (DOC) outdoor space within the public realm.

- The extent of the perimeter security encroachment into public space is too large, relative to March 2012 NCPC submission. NCPC’s policy states that perimeter security elements should be located within the building yard when at least 20’ of standoff is available.

- There are potential ADA issues at the curb/sidewalk/street parking interface. *The design team feels that the revised design resolves any ADA requirements.

- 14th Street plazas seem too large, given that most of the pedestrian traffic is on 15th Street. *GSA is reviewing the pedestrian movement studies completed for the new African American History Museum to understand projected pedestrian movements from the downtown area to the National Mall. The results of this study will be included in the project’s Supplemental EA.

- NCPC policies are intended to help find a balance between Federal Agency perimeter security needs and design in the public realm. NCPC asked the project team to make adjustments to the design to reflect three main concerns: (1) The public realm should be free of obstruction, (2) Elements located in the public realm should be consistent with DC standards, and (3) Utilize DC standard paving materials and patterns for the hardscape design.

- Public space permits will be required for any design improvements outside of the building’s property line.

- The fountains at the main entrance create an adverse effect on the historic building/ entry plaza and will require mitigation.



- NCPC does not feel that there is enough justification to the public space improvements and the placement of perimeter security in public space to warrant a favorable recommendation to the Commission. GSA cannot justify spending federal dollars on improvements to public space if the perimeter security elements are limited to the property line. NCPC explained that the Commission would receive the full submission with no formal action, for decision during the February 7, 2013 NCPC hearing.

January 09, 2013 Meeting Attendees:

DCOP: Chris Shaheen

DC SHPO: Anne Brockett D-DoT: Anna Chamberlin Shannon Hake NCPC: Carlton Hart Shane Dettman GSA: Tyrone Anderson Mina Wright Suzanne Hill Gary Porter Angela Donahue Skip Vaughn *by telephone RTKL: Rod Henderer Aimee Woodall Brian Cornell



November 28, 2012: DCOP, DC SHPO, D-DoT

On November 28, 2012, the project team met with representatives from DC Office of Planning (DCOP), the DC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and the District Department of Transportation (D-DoT) in the D-DoT offices located in Southwest DC. The purpose of the meeting was to informally present the revised Department of Commerce Perimeter Security concept proposal to the District agencies. The design review focused specifically along 14th and 15th Streets, where major design changes are being proposed. The meeting attendees discussed pros and cons relative to the addition of the proposed reflecting pools at the 14th Street Main Entry. Participants also noted that the pedestrian lay-bys and security elements located in public space along 14th and 15th Streets could be mitigated by low-impact development in these areas. Finally, meeting attendees noted that multi-modal transportation should be considered within the proposed concept, and recognized the project team’s inclusion of bicycle racks and accessible drop-off and parking zones at the curb. The project team acknowledged that the implementation of Perimeter Security at the Department of Commerce would result in an Adverse Effect on the building; the project team agreed to work closely with SHPO during the Section 106 process to mitigate the Adverse Effect.

Meeting Attendees: DCOP: Chris Shaheen

DC SHPO: Anne Brockett D-DoT: Anna Chamberlin Shannon Hake GSA: Suzanne Hill Gary Porter Mina Wright *by telephone RTKL: Rod Henderer Aimee Woodall January 12, 2012: NPS

The project team met with the National Park Service in January of 2012, to discuss Perimeter Security Treatment at the Department of Commerce along Pennsylvania Avenue and Constitution Avenue. The previously approved Perimeter Security concept at these locations is largely unchanged; the documentation from the original meeting is included in this appendix.

Any discrepancies in this report should be sent to RTKL in writing within seven (7) days. If no comments are received within seven days, this report will be considered final.

Page 1 of 4

Meeting Report

RTKL Associates Inc. 2101 L Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20037

T. 202 833 4400 F. 202 887 5168

RTKL.COM

The purpose of the Public Space Preliminary Design Review Meeting (PDRM) was to allow the Project Team to present the Perimeter Security design to reviewing members of the Public Space Regulation Administration, to evaluate and discuss perimeter security elements located in public space. Key discussion items from the meeting include:

1. Project Overview

The Design Team presented the current status of the Perimeter Security design solution for the entire site, and then focused the discussion on the portions of the project in public space. Project elements located in public space that are complying with the District standards include new street trees, street lights, areas of low-impact development, sidewalks, and curb ramps. Project elements located in public space that do not comply with the District standards and will therefore require approval by the Public Space Committee Hearing include security walls and fences. Other design items discussed during the course of the PDRM include location of collapsible sidewalks, location of bicycle racks, and element materials. A more detailed review of the project plans and concluded the meeting.

2. General Comments

The Project Team fielded general questions from District representatives who were new to the project. The general discussion recalled similar D-DoT and DC OP discussions from earlier in the year, questioning the value of perimeter security in public space. GSA representative Suzanne Hill reiterated the reasoning for resetting the Perimeter Security concept design to locate part of the security in public space, and Rod Henderer supported GSA’s argument that the variation in the location of the perimeter security helped to improve the pedestrian experience along the near quarter-mile length of both 14th and 15th Streets. Additionally, the Project Team stressed the other benefits that GSA is including in the project scope, as a result of design in public space. These amenities include low-impact development, street tree canopy improvement, and street lighting improvements. DC OP agreed that the

PROJECT: HCHB Perimeter Security DATE: 16 May 2013

PROJECT #: 20-11040.50 FILE: 2200

PURPOSE: Public Space Preliminary Design Review Meeting (PDRM)

MEETING DATE: 16 May 2013 TIME: 2:00 pm

LOCATION: DC Office of Planning, 1100 4th Street SW

REPORT BY: Aimee Woodall, AIA, LEED AP

PARTICIPANTS: See Attached

DISTRIBUTED TO PARTICIPANTS VIA:

EMAIL FAX MAIL

Meeting Report Page 2 of 4

District considers the LID to be an important amenity to public space, and noted that the Hoover Perimeter Security solution in public space will be viewed as an exception, rather than as a precedent.

3. Design Comments

a. STREET TREES AND STREET LIGHTS:

An inventory of the type, quantity, and location of the existing street lighting should be included in the permit documents. Any existing street lights on 14th Street and 15th Street that currently don’t comply with the District standards will be replaced by the District standards. Usable compliant street lights on 14th and 15th Streets will be relocated. The Design Team will review the current District standards to identify the type of fixture and type of lamping required along 14th Street and along 15th Street. The Project Team clarified that fixtures along Pennsylvania Avenue fall into the jurisdiction of the National Park Service (NPS).* The condition of the poles and globes on existing street lights along Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenue will be evaluated and painted/repaired if necessary. *D-DoT streetlight representative Ali Zamani noted that one of the existing cobra fixtures on PA Avenue was in need of immediate repair. GSA will bring this to the attention of the NPS. Lamps in fixtures along Constitution Avenue should follow the District standard of metal halide. Lamps along 14th Street, 15th Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue should follow the District standard of high-pressure sodium.

b. 14th STREET MAIN ENTRY – FLAGPOLE INTEGRATION INTO BOLLARD LINE: DC Office of Planning (DC OP) representatives indicated that the District rarely permits flagpoles in public space, and recommended placing the two proposed flagpoles at the 14th Street main entrance within the property limits, in line with the adjacent bollards.

c. LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT: The Design Team presented the details and material selections for the areas identified as low-impact development. Representatives from DC OP and D-DoT approved the use of the anodized black aluminum finish on the metal cable rail elements, and the use of the Stoney Creek Granite, which matches the granite at the base of the existing building façade, for the cladding of the cable rail terminal piers, as well as the flush and raised curbs bordering the bio-retention planters.

d. SIDEWALKS: The plan is consistent with the DC standard paving for the Federal Triangle. The Design Team will provide ADA compliant cross slopes on all new sidewalks. The width of the existing sidewalk along Constitution Avenue will be further reviewed by the Design Team. The width of the sidewalk relative to the other federal properties east of the Hoover Building, along Constitution Avenue, will be kept consistent.


e. CURB RAMPS: D-DoT representatives stated that the conditions of neighboring property curb ramps across crosswalks, as well as conditions of crosswalks, should be noted in the permit documents. D-DoT explained that GSA may be required to repair or replace curb ramps or cross walks on adjacent properties. Existing curb ramps at the four motor court driveways will be removed and continuous sidewalks will be installed. The planted medians dividing the existing drives into three individual driveways will be extended past the continuous sidewalk to align to the curb.

f. BICYCLE RACKS:

DC OP representatives advised the Design Team to include additional bicycle racks, in public space, near the main entrance on 14th Street. Size, orientation, and quantity will follow the District standards. Potential Capital Bike Share locations along 15th Street were also discussed; however, it was agreed upon by all participants that the trade-off between fewer street trees and Bike Share was not equal, and that the trees were preferable.

g. STREET TREES:

D-DoT Urban Forestry (UFA) representative Sharon Dendy referenced the recent site visit and analysis of existing street trees, performed by members of the Design Team and members of UFA. Of particular note was the request to save the existing 44” diameter elm tree located at the intersection of 15th Street and Constitution Avenue. The Design Team will incorporate the existing tree into the site plan. GSA horticulturists will also work with UFA arborists to develop specifications to protect the tree during construction. Sharon also noted that, although D-DoT will permit the removal and replacement of healthy trees from the site, UFA requires compensation for the removal of all trees deemed by UFA arborists to be Fair and Healthy. Sharon presented a schedule of the compensation, a copy of this schedule is attached to this meeting report.

h. 14TH STREET METRO BUS LOCATION: D-DoT recommended that the Design Team contact D-DoT permit reviewer Catrina Harrison for guidance on documents required to complete the permit application, as related to the relocation of the WMATA bus pole on 14th Street. On a related topic, D-DoT representatives noted that a Maintenance of Traffic Agreement will be required to ensure that access to the existing WMATA bus shelter on Constitution is not obstructed during the reconstruction of the existing sidewalks.


4. Conclusions/ Next Steps

The Project Team has submitted the permit application and has requested inclusion in the June 2013 Public Space Committee Hearing agenda.

--- END OF MEETING REPORT --- Attachments: Meeting sign-in sheet Meeting agenda D-DoT Street Tree Removal compensation schedule

awoodall

Line

awoodall

Typewritten Text

PDRM

of 1


T. 202 833 4400 F. 202 887 5168

RTKL.COM

Meeting Agenda

1. Introductions 2. Overall review of Perimeter Security Design

3. Review of Elements in Public Space

a. Street trees and Street lights b. Low Impact Development c. Security walls and fences d. Sidewalk paving: Exposed Aggregate Concrete with 3’ x 3’ scoring e. Curb Ramps f. Bicycle racks

4. Detail review of elements, including materials

5. Outstanding Permit/Design issues

a. Metro Bus stop location – south end of 14th Street b. Capital Bike Share potential locations

NEXT STEPS

Public Space permit application submitted on May 3, 2013, requesting special consideration for June Public Space Committee Hearing

Submit Preliminary/Final packages to NCPC/CFA. NCPC hearing date: June 6, 2013 (deliverable: May 3, 2013) CFA hearing date: June 20, 2013 (deliverable: June 6, 2013)

PROJECT: HCHB – Perimeter Security DATE: 16 May 2013

PROJECT #: 20‐11040.10 FILE:

TOPIC: HCHB Perimeter Security – Public Space Design Coordination & Section 106 Consultation


Page 1 of 3

Meeting Report


T. 202 833 4400 F. 202 887 5168

RTKL.COM

The Project Team met with representatives from the District Department of Transportation (D-DoT), the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), together referenced in these minutes as the Consulting Team, to review the design progress of the Perimeter Security concept, and to discuss design options for the perimeter security elements proposed in Public Space. Key discussion items from the meeting include:

1. Project Overview

The Design Team presented the revisions to the concept design, as listed on the attached agenda, and discussed the overall design progress and development that has occurred since the last formal meeting(s) with various representatives. Also included in the design progress discussion was a review of a sample proposed material palette.

2. Design Comments

a. STREET TREES AND STREET LIGHTS:

No comments.

b. 14th STREET MAIN ENTRY – FLAGPOLE INTEGRATION INTO BOLLARD LINE: CFA representative Tom Luebke requested that the number of flag poles at the main entrance be studied and perhaps reduced from four to two or fewer. The meeting participants also discussed strategies to add order/hierarchy to the placement of the flagpoles in the bollard line. Per Tom’s recommendation, the Design Team will study a staggered placement of (fewer) flagpoles within the bollard line, as allowable to utilize the flagpoles as security elements.

c. REVISED TREATMENT OF WALLS AT CORNERS: The meeting participants discussed the re-entrant corner treatment on 15th Street at Pennsylvania Avenue. Also discussed was the desire for a consistent approach at all four corners. The Design Team will study the corners to simplify the approach in a manner that can be applied in each location. Because of the

PROJECT: HCHB Perimeter Security DATE: 28 March 2013

PROJECT #: 20-11040.50 FILE: 2200

PURPOSE: Multi-Agency Design Progress Consensus | Public Space Design Progress

MEETING DATE: 27 March 2013 TIME: 2:00 pm

LOCATION: GSA Regional Office Building: 301 7th Street SW




EMAIL FAX MAIL


adjacency to the corners, two additional related topics were discussed: Capital Bike Share and Collapsible Sidewalk treatment. i. Capital Bike Share - NCPC representative Carlton Hart expressed concern over

the removal of the previously proposed CBS locations along 15th Street. The Design Team explained that the site could not support the required footprint for the stations, in the previously proposed locations. The Design Team agreed to revisit the issue and discuss options/ need with D-DoT Bicycle Liasion George Branyan and Capital Bike Share coordinator Chris Holben.

ii. Collapsible Sidewalks (also referred to as ‘Tiger Traps’) – the meeting

participants disagreed on whether or not the sidewalk surfaces should be delineated with a different material in the locations of the collapsible sidewalks. Additional discussion was had regarding the walls that create the throat on the long sides of the traps. The Design Team will do further study to determine if it is structurally feasible to extend the cable fence system along the edge of the traps.

d. 14TH STREET METRO BUS LOCATION:

No comments.

e. REVISED SIDEWALK PAVING: The revised plan is consistent with the DC standard paving for the Federal Triangle. No comments.

f. BICYCLE ALIGNMENT AT CURB: The revised design for the public bicycle racks is consistent with the recommendations made during the March 7, 2013 coordination meeting with D-DoT. See meeting minute mark 2.c.i. for additional discussion regarding Capital Bike Share.

g. REVISED L.I.D. STRATEGY: The meeting participants agreed that the preferred L.I.D. strategy presented as part of the revised design progress meets the intent of D-DoT’s draft guidelines for L.I.D., and would be considered acceptable as part of the mitigation for placing Perimeter Security in Public Space. D-DoT concerns regarding the proposed material palette are described in meeting minute mark 2.h. Previous concerns regarding the appropriateness of an L.I.D. installation at the perimeter of a monumental Federal Triangle building were relieved. CFA representative Tom Luebke commented that the curb approach as a boundary on three sides of the L.I.D. planters is an effective architectural solution that helps to formalize the installations within the context of the monumental building. The Design Team also noted that the flush curb at the sidewalk edge allows the L.I.D. planters to collect runoff from the building yard, in addition to the street runoff.


The Design Team will pursue the development of the L.I.D. bio-retention planters, as shown in the meeting graphics, incorporating a granite curb about three sides of the planter and the perimeter security cable fence along the sidewalk-side of the planters.

h. MATERIAL PALETTE: D-DoT and NCPC representatives agreed that the use of the anodized aluminum finish for metal elements within public space was appropriate and acceptable. Representatives from both organizations suggested that the use of the building stone (Stoney Creek Granite) as a cladding material for stone elements within public space did not resolve previous concerns raised, regarding the material palette. Additionally, D-DoT noted that the proposed grey granite selection for the curb edge at the LID installations is outside of D-DoT’s approved stone palette and asked that the Design Team consider using the D-DoT-approved granite material instead. The Design Team will study strategies to transition between building-related materials and Public Space-related materials in areas of adjacency. The meeting participants agreed that the palettes, whether individual or mixed, should remain simple.


The Design Team will meet with representatives from DC OP, D-DoT, NCPC, and CFA in mid-April for a follow-up progress and coordination meeting. This will preclude the Preliminary/Final Submission to NCPC, for the June 6, 2013 hearing. D-DoT representative Anna Chamberlin confirmed that a Concept Review meeting with the DC Public Space Committee would not be necessary, as the design has evolved such that the elements proposed within Public Space are no longer considered controversial.

--- END OF MEETING REPORT --- Attachments: Meeting sign-in sheet Meeting agenda

of 1


T. 202 833 4400 F. 202 887 5168

RTKL.COM

Meeting Agenda

1. Introductions 2. Overview of design, including updated design solutions

a. Revised layout of street trees and street lights b. Revised design at 14th Street Main Entry – flagpoles c. Revised wall treatment at North corners of site (14th & 15th Streets at PA Ave) d. Revised Metro Bus stop location – south end of 14th Street e. Revised sidewalk paving: Exposed Aggregate Concrete with 3’ x 3’ scoring f. Revised bicycle alignment to curb g. Revised LID strategy in public space (item 3 below) h. Proposed material revisions (item 4 below)

3. LID Strategy in Public Space

4. Material selections & samples

5. Next Steps

a. Concept Review at Public Space Committee Meeting – target date: April 25, 2013/ backup date: May 23, 2013

b. Finalize Section 106 process‐ target date: April 25, 2013 c. Submit Preliminary/Final packages to NCPC/CFA. NCPC hearing date: June 6, 2013. CFA

hearing date: June 20, 2013 d. DDoT PDRM e. Submit Public Space Permit Documents/ Public Space Committee meeting – date TBD

Reference Resources:

Public Realm Design Manual, DDoT 2011

Public Realm Design Handbook, DDoT 2008

Design Engineering Manual, DDoT 2009

DC Streetlight Policy and Design Guidelines, DDoT 2005

Draft Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure Design Standards, DDoT 2013

Monumental Core Framework Plan, NCPC 2009

ABA Accessibility Standards for Federal Facilities, 2008

PROJECT: HCHB – Perimeter Security DATE: 27 March 2013

PROJECT #: 20‐11040.10 FILE:

TOPIC: HCHB Perimeter Security – Public Space Design Progress


Page 1 of 3

Meeting Report


T. 202 833 4400 F. 202 887 5168

RTKL.COM

The Project Team, including representatives from RTKL Associates, Inc. and the General Services Administration (GSA) met with personnel from the National Park Service (NPS), to review the proposed new Perimeter Security concept. Key discussion items from the meeting include:

1. Project Overview

This meeting was a follow up conversation to a meeting with the same participants that occurred on 12 March 2012. The purpose of this meeting was to bring NPS up to date regarding the design solution that has been conditionally approved at the concept level by both the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). Concept approvals for the design of the perimeter security, were granted on February 21, 2013 and February 7, 2013, respectively. The Project Team also discussed existing site conditions, for the benefit of introduction and design history for meeting attendees who have not been involved in previous design discussions.

2. Comments

a. Permitting:

NPS confirmed that the work along the Pennsylvania Avenue side of the building would require a short-term use permit from their offices.


PROJECT #: 20-11040.50 FILE: 2200

PURPOSE: National Park Service Review and Discussion

MEETING DATE: 12 March 2013 TIME: 10:00 am

LOCATION: GSA Headquarters, 701 D Street, SW Room 2700, Washington, DC

REPORT BY: Brian Cornell RLA, ASLA, BCSLA, LEED AP BD+C



EMAIL FAX MAIL


b. Wall Design: NPS questioned the different wall treatments at the corners of Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues. The Project Team indicated that the walls at the corners of Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th and 15th Streets are minimized at the corners only. GSA indicated that CFA has requested that the total length of wall at these locations be reduced further in favor of the more transparent clad cable rail system. The Project Team indicated that the proposed walls located at the corners of Constitution Avenue and 14th and 15th Streets are also retaining walls, supporting the existing grades at both of these locations. NPS indicated that bike racks are desirable in the vicinity of White House Visitor Center to support acquiring a higher LEED rating. The proposed wall notch near at the corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and 15th Street may become the preferred location.

c. Collapsible Sidewalks: NPS indicated the need for further discussion regarding the use of collapsible sidewalks along 14th and 15th Streets. The NPS present noted the previously raised concerns regarding the safety of the United States Park Police (USPP) horses, relative to the point-load of the animals hoof, including the weight of the animal and rider, will cause the sidewalk to collapse. NPS will be providing the Project Team with contact information for NPS personnel with whom to discuss this issue.


NPS is currently preparing an Environmental Assessment for Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site, which was transferred to NPS following the sunset of PADC in 1996. The Assessment proposes transfer of the sidewalk jurisdiction to DC and others. The draft EA is undergoing internal review. Once accepted will transfer the right of ownership of certain areas along Pennsylvania Avenue to DDoT and other public and private land owners along the Avenue. NPS anticipates this effort will coincide with the establishment of a Business Improvement District (BID). NPS noted that this effort is in the planning stages and a draft proposal is being developed. NPS also indicated that the anticipated construction schedule of the HCHB perimeter security improvements will be completed before the new agreement takes place.

--- END OF MEETING REPORT --- Attachments: sign-in sheet

Section 106 Consultation

Herbert C. Hoover Building Perimeter Security

March 11, 2013

2:00 p.m.

GSA Regional Office Building

Attendees: Anne Brockett (District of Columbia State Historic Preservation Office); Kirsten Kulis

(Advisory Council on Historic Preservation); Tom Luebke (U.S. Commission of Fine Arts); John Stenwich,

Tobin Tracey (National Park Service); Mina Wright, Suzanne Hill, Gary Porter (U.S. General Services

Administration); Aimee Woodall, Rod Henderer (RTKL Associates, Inc.); Claire Sale, AECOM

Discussion:

Gary Porter welcomed everybody to the meeting. He introduced himself, followed by attendee

introductions.

Gary Porter and Suzanne Hill described the project as the perimeter security for the Herbert C. Hoover

Building (HCHB), which follows previous Section 106 consultation for the HCHB interior renovations, the

National Aquarium entrance relocation, accessibility improvements, and earlier perimeter security

designs. The current Section 106 process will address perimeter security improvements and entrance

ramps at the central 14th and 15th Street entrances to the HCHB.

Suzanne Hill said that the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) intends to release a Supplemental

Environmental Assessment for the perimeter security improvements, in order to comply with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Suzanne Hill stated that both the U.S. Commission of Fine

Arts (CFA) and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) have reviewed the design concept for

the perimeter security improvements, at which time CFA approved the concept and NCPC provided

comments.

Claire Sale presented the site context of the HCHB, as well as Area of Potential Effect (APE). She

described the historic features of the HCHB, as well as the other properties within the APE: Federal

Triangle Historic District, Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site, the L’Enfant Plan for the City of

Washington, Bulfinch Gatehouses and Gateposts, National Mall, Washington Monument, the Treasury

Building, Willard Hotel, Washington Hotel (W Hotel), Ariel Rios Building, and the District Building.

Rod Henderer reviewed the design of the perimeter security improvements. Features within the

building yard include cable rail fences, garden walls, raised planter beds, and bollards at entrances. The

design also includes the introduction of universally accessible ramps at the central entrance at 14th

Street. Features located within the public space include cable rail fences, garden walls flanking

collapsible sidewalks at the building’s corners, gathering areas at the sidewalk near the building’s

southern corners, street tree replacement, and the installation of low‐impact development (LID)

measures along the curb.

Claire Sale introduced the initial findings regarding adverse effects of the historic properties within the

APE. These are summarized below:

HCHB. There would be an adverse effect on the HCHB due to the changes to the entrances to

the building, which would directly affect the HCHB, as well as the placement of perimeter

security in the building yard and public space, which change the setting of the HCHB.

Federal Triangle Historic District. There would be an adverse effect on the Federal Triangle

Historic District due to perimeter security elements, which would change the relationship of the

Hoover Building to the other contributing resources, interrupting the continuity.

Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site. There would be an adverse effect on the

Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site due to the placement of perimeter security along

Pennsylvania Avenue will alter the relationship of the Building to Pennsylvania Avenue. As part

of this, some streetscape elements (light fixtures) would be removed, and the security elements

would alter the setting of the streetscape elements.

L’Enfant Plan of the City of Washington. There would be an adverse effect on the L’Enfant Plan

of the City of Washington the placement of perimeter security elements within the sidewalk,

such as along 14th and 15th Streets, that would alter the continuity of the right‐or‐way and the

historic spatial relationships. Perimeter security elements would also change the open

relationships between the L’Enfant Reservations to the north of the site and the Hoover

Building, and would alter views along Pennsylvania Avenue.

Bulfinch Gates, President’s Park South, National Mall, Washington Monument, the Treasury

Building, Willard Hotel, Washington Hotel (W Hotel), Ariel Rios Building, and the District

Building: There would be no adverse effect on these properties as a result of the HCHB

perimeter security elements.

Claire Sale identified the mitigation measures under consideration. She identified potential

interpretation of the HCHB to augment the public’s understanding of the building and its housing of

government agencies. She also identified the use of low landscaping materials in keeping with the initial

landscape design for the building.

Tom Luebke asked who maintained the site. Suzanne responded that the Department of Commerce is

responsible for maintaining the site. Tom Luebke added that CFA, in its comments, noted that the use

of LID measures is not neo‐classical in its design. However, CFA recognizes that this is an ongoing

direction of development. Kirsten Kulis added that the introduction of a naturalistic element to the

building setting seemed out of character.

Kirsten Kulis stated that she had several comments:

‐ The light standards along Pennsylvania Avenue are inconsistent, and perhaps this project could

help unify the standards.

‐ She asked where people would circulate and gather near Pennsylvania Avenue.

‐ She suggested relocating the bus stop along Constitution Avenue, as its current location is

almost mid‐block.

‐ She suggested considering the use of street furniture instead of cable rails.

‐ She asked about the use of granite and its rusticated form in the materials.

‐ She asked what kind of pavement materials would be used for the sidewalks.

‐ Regarding the flagpoles along 14th Street, she asked if all of them are necessary.

In response to the question about granite as a material for the perimeter security, Tom Luebke stated

that CFA recommended the materials be similar to those of the HCHB. Anne Brockett said that she liked

the overall railing design.

Anne Brockett asked if the flags would be lit at night. Rod Henderer stated that they would be lit at

night.

Kirsten Kulis asked about the size of the planter beds. Gary Porter noted that in comparison to previous

designs, the main difference is that the outside corners of the perimeter security extend into public

space. Suzanne Hill stated that by extending the perimeter security into public space, funding from the

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act could be spent.

Anne Brockett asked why the perimeter security at the corners of the HCHB were notched out. The

design team responded that it is intended to accommodate a Capital Bikeshare station. Tom Luebke

commented that the Capital Bikeshare stations are temporary features, in that they can be moved. If

the stations are moved in the future, he asked if it would be better to have pavement. Anne Brockett

said that the placement of the wall did not feel cohesive. Anne Brockett and Tom Luebke suggested that

the system plan for Capital Bikeshare stations be considered in order to optimize location.

Anne Brockett asked if the drinking fountain along Pennsylvania Avenue would be removed as part of

the perimeter security improvements. The design team responded that it would not be removed.

Kirsten Kulis asked if there were bollards in front of the entrances, to which the design team responded

yes, there are bollards placed in front of the entrances. Kirsten Kulis suggested that a combination of

bollards and planters might be a solution. Mina Wright stated that GSA was not considering the

incorporation of planters.

Anne Brockett asked if the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) would object if the bollards

were pulled further back and into public space. GSA and the design team responded that such an option

was considered in previous designs, but was not well received by agencies.

John Stenwich asked if it would be possible to navigate golf carts through the perimeter security

elements. The design team responded that yes, golf carts would be able to go through the perimeter

security.

Anne Brockett requested that the APE include all of President’s Park South and all of the Washington

Monument.

Kirsten Kulis suggested that the mitigation could integrate the interpretation into the security feature.

For instance, an interpretive sign could be used instead of a bollard.

Anne Brockett and Kirsten Kulis recommended that ongoing design review be incorporated into the

Memorandum of Agreement.

Representatives from the National Park Service said that Peter May would be the proper signatory for

the MOA. Gary Porter said that he would draft a letter inviting the National Park Service as a signatory.

Kirsten Kulis said that she would suggest another meeting occur in order to review responses to these

comments.

Next Steps

‐ Send a formal determination of effects to the District of Columbia State Historic Preservation

Office.

‐ Further explore mitigation efforts.

‐ Review treatment and materials of perimeter security elements, including use of bollards,

seating, and railing, and flagpoles.

‐ Draft MOA for signatory review.


Page 1 of 3

Meeting Report


T. 202 833 4400 F. 202 887 5168

RTKL.COM

The Project Team met with representatives from the District Department of Transportation (D-DoT) and DC Office of Planning (DC OP), referenced in these minutes as the Consulting Team, to review the design progress of the Perimeter Security concept, and discuss design options for the perimeter security elements proposed in Public Space. Key discussion items from the meeting include:

1. Project Overview

The Design Team presented the design solution that has been conditionally approved at the concept level by both the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) and the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC). Concept approvals for the design of the perimeter security, including location of some of the elements within Public Space, were granted on February 21, 2013 and February 7, 2013, respectively. The design team also discussed existing site conditions, for the benefit of introduction and design history for meeting attendees who have not been involved in previous design discussions.

2. Design Comments

a. ADA: ACCESS AND STREET PARKING:

Brett Rouillier (not in attendance) was identified as the ADA liaison for D-DoT. D-DoT confirmed that reserved ADA street parking must be fully ADA compliant, and should be located near curb cuts with compliant ramps, clear vehicle entry and exit space, etc. The design team will review the reserved ADA parking space locations along Constitution Avenue and the south section of 15th Street, where metered street parking is provided. The design team will coordinate with GSA and DOC to locate reserved ADA street parking on all other streets, where parking is restricted to Government Permit parking.


PROJECT #: 20-11040.50 FILE: 2200

PURPOSE: D-DoT & DC OP | Public Space Design Review

MEETING DATE: 05 March 2013 TIME: 1:30 pm

LOCATION: D-DoT Offices: 55 M Street SE




EMAIL FAX MAIL


b. LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) & REPLACEMENT OF STREET TREES: DC OP representative Chris Shaheen indicated to the Design Team that LID design to capture sidewalk runoff alone is not adequate for DC OP and/or D-DoT to consider as mitigation for perimeter security in public space. Chris recommended that curb inlets be provided in LID areas to collect street storm water runoff as well, and referenced recent examples of installed LID designs, for the Design Team to visit. Referenced examples included a recent Casey Trees project at the intersection of 12th Street and Irving, an installation at Yards Park, and the installation at the new Forensics Lab building at 4th Street and E Street SW. Chris also recommended that the Design Team contact Meredith Upchurch for LID draft guidelines. Sharon Dendy, D-DoT representative for Urban Forestry, also offered to share the draft guidelines for tree spacing and soil structure with the Design Team. Sharon also confirmed that the tree spacing requirements for this area are different from those standards noted in the Public Realm Design Manual, and recommended that the Design Team provide tree spacing at 30’ on center. (Following the meeting, Sharon Dendy requested a site visit with RTKL Landscape Architect Brian Cornell. The date of the site visit is not yet confirmed.)

c. PAVING: D-DoT representative Anna Chamberlin confirmed that the District Standard for sidewalk paving within the Monumental Core is exposed aggregate concrete, with 36” on-center scoring at sidewalks. Given that the District standard sidewalk width in this area is 10’, the Design Team requested some flexibility in the scoring dimension, to allow for equal layout of score joints parallel to the sidewalk direction, thus eliminating narrow panels or slivers of sidewalks at sidewalk edges. D-DoT explained that the attendees of the (future) Preliminary Design Review Meeting (PDRM) would determine if this deviation would be considered acceptable.

d. DESIGN OF PERIMETER SECURITY ELEMENTS LOCATED IN PUBLIC SPACE: Representatives from both D-DoT and DC OP explained that the fence elements located in public space needed to relate to D-DoT standard element designs rather than to the building or the other perimeter security elements. The Design Team indicated that the perimeter security elements were very different than city standard fencing, and the reconciliation of these two very different types of elements might not be an acceptable design solution for the monumental presence of the Herbert C. Hoover building. DC OP recommended that the Design Team consider the Traditional city standard material palette, as a starting point, and clarified that the Contemporary palette was not intended for this area of the District. The Consulting Team also recommended that the Design Team explore solutions that lighten the garden wall massing at the building’s corners. See additional discussion in part 3, Conclusion & Next Steps, relating progression of the design of these elements.


e. CAPITAL BIKE SHARE REQUIREMENTS & OTHER PUBLIC BICYCLE PARKING: D-DoT representative George Branyan confirmed that Capital Bike Share space requirements are minimum 6’ (width) x 50’ (length). The Design Team stated that the proposed corner locations for future Capital Bike Share stations, at the north and south ends of 15th Street, are not large enough to accommodate the minimum requirement. D-DoT recommended that the Design Team contact Chris Holben, Capital Bike Share Coordinator. For other public bicycle racks, the following considerations should be made: provide multiple rack locations, near building entry points; racks should be oriented perpendicular to the curb.

f. WMATA AND OTHER BUS STOPS:

D-DoT representatives recommended relocation of existing WMATA bus stops on 14th Street to locations closer to street intersections. In particular, the existing bus stop, indicated by WMATA signage (no shelter) north of the intersection of 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, should be moved south toward Constitution. Additionally, the Consulting Team confirmed that a 30’ pad is required at bus stops. Trees in bus stop zones are ideal to provide shade for users waiting for busses, and the use of Flexi-Pave is being tested in the District in existing tree boxes adjacent to bus stops. The Consulting Team identified Alice Kelly as the D-DoT liaison to WMATA.

g. OTHER:

The Consulting Team clarified the location of street lights to be 3’ from center line of light post to curb.


To resolve design issues related to the element design in public space, the Design Team and Consulting Team agreed that consultation with members of the D-DoT Public Space Committee, specifically Matthew Marcou, would be beneficial. Anna Chamberlin offered to reach out to Mr. Marcou, and kept the master plan (1:200 scale) provided by the Design Team, for illustration and exhibit to begin the discussion internally at D-DoT. Anna also recommended an additional staff-level design review of the perimeter security elements, prior to the establishment of the PDRM date. D-DoT clarified that the PDRM is not a requirement, but a tool to finalizing design and permitting in public space, and recommended that the Design Team initiate the project application through the TOPS (Transportation Online Permit System) system, found online at ddot.dc.gov. Through additional staff level meetings, D-DoT representatives will make further recommendations to the Design Team on how to proceed through the Public Space permitting process.

--- END OF MEETING REPORT --- Attachments: sign-in sheet

ROD HENDERER* RTKL 202-833-4400 [email protected]

(*not signed in)

=


Page 1 of 4

=

Meeting Report


T. 202 833 4400 F. 202 887 5168

RTKL.COM

The Project Team met with team members from the National Park Service (NPS) to present

concept designs for the Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenue frontages of the Herbert C.

Hoover building Perimeter Security, and to engage the NPS representatives in a design

discussion/ work session for continued development of the security elements. Participants from

the National Park Service included representatives from the White House Visitor’s Center

(WHVC) and Presidents Park, as well as the National Mall and Memorial Parks. The NPS

representatives clarified to the Project Team that the Pennsylvania Avenue historic district is

within the jurisdiction of the NPS National Mall and Memorial Parks entity. Key discussion items

from the meeting include:

1. Project Introduction and Overall Perimeter Layout:

The Design Team provided a brief project introduction to the NPS representatives, and

described the scope of work included in the Perimeter Security Project, key team

members, the current status of the design, and major milestones in the project’s

schedule. The Design Team noted that, because the project is receiving ARRA

funding, the project’s schedule is based on meeting construction completion deadlines

that comply with the ARRA funding requirements.

The Design Team briefly described the overall perimeter layout for the Perimeter

Security design, to include a complete and rated perimeter around the entirety of the

Herbert C. Hoover Building, located at the building’s property line along 14th and 15th

Streets, and in coordination with the south wall of the relocated National Aquarium on

Constitution Avenue. Along Pennsylvania Avenue, the Design Team proposed to the

NPS that the perimeter location be in line with the north side of the existing planting

beds that flank the entry to the WHVC.

PROJECT: HCHB Perimeter Security DATE: 16 January 2012 rev. 23 Jan. 2012

PROJECT #: 20-11040.10 FILE: 2200

PURPOSE: NPS Consensus Meeting

MEETING DATE: 12 January 2012 TIME: 3:30PM

LOCATION: Herbert C. Hoover Building (HCHB) Jacobs Engineering Field Office




EMAIL FAX MAIL

=

=

Meeting Report

=

Page 2 of 4

Further elaboration of the concepts at the National Aquarium Entry (Constitution

Avenue) and the WHVC (Pennsylvania Avenue) were provided by the Design Team

and are documented below.

2. Constitution Avenue Perimeter Treatment and Interface with National Aquarium

Renovations:

The Design Team explained to the NPS that the concept designs for National

Aquarium Renovations had already received approval from the National Capital

Planning Commission (NCPC) and the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA). The Perimeter

Security elements, integrated into the approved design concepts along the south wall

of the aquarium entry, were presented to the NPS. NPS representative Doug Jacobs

asked for clarification regarding the free-area proportion of the metal mesh cladding on

the screen wall at the aquarium entry. The Design Team clarified that a mesh with

50% clear area was approved during the most recent design board review. The

remainder of the security elements along the Constitution Avenue elevation was

presented to the NPS representatives with no objection from the NPS.

3. Pennsylvania Avenue Perimeter Treatment Options:

The Design Team briefly described two options for treatment of the 14th and 15th

Street elevations of the building, and described how both of these options transition

into treatment of the perimeter along Pennsylvania Avenue.

a. Option 1 includes a rated cable-rail system made up of two cables strung between

a series of vertical elements. At termination points in the system, the vertical

elements are proposed as simple stone piers. At intermediate points along the

system (roughly every ten feet), the vertical elements will resemble the free-

standing bollards that are proposed at pedestrian entry points within the

perimeter.

b. Option 2 includes a rated wall system interrupted at intervals relative to the

building façade by shallow seating or way-finding niches. The two-cable rail

system with two vertical bollards will be utilized to provide the perimeter at the

edge of the niche that runs parallel to the building façade. A shallow break in the

rated wall (less than three feet deep) will be provided on the sides of the niches

that run perpendicular to the building façade. The walls are proposed as stone

with simple horizontal reveal detailing relative to the reveals located on the

bollards and stone piers. The walls are proposed as 36 inches in height. The

Project Team and NPS representatives recognized that the height of the wall could

be a determining factor in design board review, and the Design Team agreed to

further develop the concept with the lowest-possible rated wall.

In both options, the treatment of Pennsylvania Avenue is similar: the Design Team

proposed to elongate the landscaped lawn panels that run along 14th Street and 15th

Street north toward Pennsylvania Avenue. This design matches the precedent set by

the Constitution Avenue-end of the lawn panels, and also conforms to the precedent

set for landscape treatment flanking secondary and tertiary entry doors at all other

similar locations on the Hoover Building. At the north corners of the perimeter, a

curved stone wall is proposed. The Design Team agreed to review the required height

of the wall to achieve the necessary rating, recognizing again that a lower-height wall

=

=

Meeting Report

=

Page 3 of 4

will be considered more favorable. Seating elements incorporated into the design of

the wall will also be considered during this review.

The Design Team explained that four of the existing street trees, as well as four of the

existing Bicentennial-era domed light fixtures would be affected by the

implementation of the perimeter at this location, and proposed removing the four trees

and light fixtures for relocation somewhere else along the Pennsylvania Avenue

corridor. All other existing street furniture along the Pennsylvania Avenue corridor at

the Hoover Building can remain with both of the proposed options. Two new pair of

street trees will be incorporated into north side of the elongated lawn panels. The

NPS representatives did not object to this plan. The Project Team will continue to

engage NPS in consultation when proposing new locations for the affected street

trees and light fixtures.

At the WHVC, the Design Team explained that the north side of the perimeter security

is proposed to align with the existing planting beds. Both design options include

installing a rated stone wall (proposed at 36 inches tall) along the planting bed edge

parallel to the building’s Pennsylvania Avenue façade. Lower wall elements, aligned in

height with the building’s water table course, will be installed perpendicular to the

building’s façade and will provide seating elements adjacent to the WHVC entry. A

raised planter bed will fill the space between the building and the rated wall. The

Design Team explained the proposal to stiffen and reuse the four existing light pole

fixtures immediately outside of the WHVC. The spacing of the light fixtures, with

intermediate bollards, will be developed for a balance between the rated perimeter

requirements and maximum flexibility for installation and removal of large exhibits

within the WHVC. The NPS representatives from the WHVC confirmed for the Project

Team that exhibit changes are required two-to-three times annually, and requested

that removable or retractable bollards be installed at this location. Because of potential

maintenance issues, the Design Team recommended removable-type bollards, and

will research the requirements for this type of perimeter element.

4. Individual Perimeter Elements:

The Design Team briefly recapped the recent design development of the perimeter

elements, and explained that the design has intentionally moved away from the

Hoover Building’s Beaux-Arts influence.

a. Metal Bollards were described to the Client Team and the NPS team as simple

and commercially available; the proposed finish material is brushed stainless steel.

While the finishes of the proposed elements is part of a larger, ongoing

discussion, brushed stainless seems to be the appropriate material as it will not

compete with or detract from historic metal finishes already on the building

facades, is easy to maintain, and relates to the new finishes approved for the

National Aquarium entry. NPS representative Doug Jacobs expressed his

agreement with the design choice, but also noted that other pieces of the

Pennsylvania Avenue Historic District should be studied for their influence on the

final design concepts. Eliza Voigt, also representing NPS National Mall and

Memorial Parks, informed the Project Team that the NPS would include the

Project Team in future Pennsylvania Avenue Development discussions. Scott

Tucker, Park Manager of the WHVC and President’s Park, confirmed that the

=

=

Meeting Report

=

Page 4 of 4

location of the proposed perimeter line will not conflict with the location of the

bleachers set up for Presidential Inauguration parades.

b. The Cable Rail System, as described in the minutes above (mark 3.a), includes two

cables installed between a series of vertical elements (bollards at intermediate

elements and stone piers at terminations). The Design Team is reviewing design

options for cladding the cables. Doug Jacobs described recent approval of a

similar system at the Jefferson Memorial; the approved design includes a bundled

cable system with a continuous low curb at the base of the system.

c. Stone Piers and Stone Walls will be detailed with simple horizontal reveals that

relate to the other perimeter elements. As noted in the minutes above, the

Design Team will review the minimum height requirements to achieve the desired

rating for the system.

5. Concluding Discussion:

NPS representatives offered no objections to the proposed design options, and

commended the design as good in keeping with the Pennsylvania Avenue concept.

Members from both the Design Team and the NPS team expressed slight favor for

design option 2, as the wall elements provide a more elegant solution; however, all

parties recognized the economy and below-grade coordination benefits afforded by the

cable rail option 1 scheme. No one expressed strong opinion against the cable rail

option 1 design. It was concluded that the design review boards would likely inform

the final decision.

--- END OF MEETING REPORT ---

Re: Enclosures:

1. Meeting Sign-in Sheet

GSA Contract No. GS‐11P‐11‐MK‐C‐0045 06 June 2013 Herbert C. Hoover Building Modernization Perimeter Security Design RTKL Associates Inc. Stormwater Management Calculations


VII. Appendix – Stormwater Management Calculations

3.6.13 Stormwater Management Existing Conditions Stormwater on the site drains away from the building and is collected in storm drains and combined sewer lines located along the periphery of the site. The storm water collection system consist of a 991mmx1219mm (3.25’x 4.0’) combined sewer under 14th street and a 610 mm (24 inch) separate storm sewer under 15th street. The runoff is intercepted via multiple existing curb inlets located on 14th and 15th street. The combined sewer is ultimately conveyed to the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment, however, under extreme rain fall events, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) may be released directly into the Potomac River, impacting water quality. The separate storm sewer system is conveyed to a 7’-3” collector pipe and ultimately discharges to the Washington Channel. There currently is no storm water management facility serving the site. The governing body for storm water management in the district of Columbia is the Department of the Environment (DDOE) and are authorized to enforce the DC Municipal Regulations 21 (DCMR 21) Chapter 5 sections 526 through 535. DDOE is currently in the process of changing the regulations. The new requirement are scheduled to be implemented beginning July, 2013. Under the new regulation the retention of the 1.2 inch storm will be the requirement. 3.6.14 Stormwater Management Environmental Consequences The renovation project was designed and permitted approximately over 5 years ago and the storm water management requirement prevalent at the time was implemented. The guideline at the time was to comply with local requirements. Therefore the requirement of the DC Department of the Environment at the time was implemented as far as the roof drainage was concerned. During the design of the renovation project, the amount of storm water treatment volume was determined by choosing the higher value of either quantity control volume or the quality control volume. Quantity control volume is determined by comparing the limits of disturbance area in an undisturbed, meadow condition during a 2-year storm to the limits of disturbance area of the actual post-developed condition during a 15-year storm. Quality control volume is determined by assuming 0.5" of runoff depth for all parking lots / roads, and 0.3" of runoff depth for all sidewalks and rooftops. The receiving sewer system on 14th street NW is 991mmx1219mm combined sewer system while the receiving system on 15th street is a 610 mm separate storm drain system. Therefore the storm water management requirement on 15th street, at the time of the design was to provide only quantity control. On 14th Street, since the system was combined, both quality and quantity control have to be provided. The total volume required for the 15th Street side was 13,471 cubic feet (381 CM) and 42,37 2cubic feet (1200CM) for the 14th street side. These volumes were provided in underground detention facilities which included Storm Filters and Storage pipes. In addition there will be a 2365 square meter proposed extensive green roof over the proposed aquarium which will provide additional retention volume. These stormwater management facilities were provided for the roof area of the building which is not considered a disturbance, as all the work is interior renovation. This volume therefore will be credited to the site stormwater management requirement.

The site which consist of the area between the face of building and the face of curb will be designed to comply to the maximum extent technically feasible, with Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008 (EISA 438) and the Requirement of the District of Columbia ‘s department of the Environment. Below is a brief summary of the requirement of EISA 438. EISA 438 is enacted in order to require federal agencies to reduce stormwater runoff from federal development projects to protect water resources. The requirement specifically states:

“The sponsor of any development or redevelopment project involving a federal facility with a foot print that exceeds 5,000 square feet shall use site planning, design, construction and maintenance strategies for the property to maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the pre-development hydrology of the property with regard to temperature, rate, volume and duration of flow.”

Pre-development hydrology is defined as the state of the land before it was developed. Rainfall was retained where it fell by absorption into the ground by infiltration, by plants as evaporation and transpiration etc. Surface runoff was limited to approximately 0.3% of the total rainfall. Under post development hydrology over 30% of the rainfall runs off into receiving water bodies. The intention of the statute is to maintain or restore the pre-development site hydrology during the development or redevelopment process. To be more specific, this requirement is intended to ensure that receiving waters are not negatively impacted by changes in runoff temperature, volumes, durations and rates resulting from federal projects. The EISA 438 Technical Guideline has identified two options that can be used to comply with the regulation. Option 1 Retain the 95th Percentile Rainfall Event Design construct and maintain storm water management practices that manage rainfall onsite, and prevent the offsite discharge of the precipitation from all rainfall events less than or equal to the 95th percentile. The 95th percentile storm event in Washington DC has been determined to be 1.7 inches. This option assumes retaining all storms up to the 95th percentile storm ion site is analogous to maintaining or restoring the pre-development hydrology with respect to the volume, flow rate, duration and temperature of the runoff for most sites. Option 2 Site Specific Hydrologic Analysis This option allows the designer to conduct a site-specific hydrologic analysis to determine the pre-development runoff conditions instead of using the estimated volume approach of Option 1. Under Option 2, the pre-development hydrology would be determined based on site-specific conditions and local meteorology by using continuous simulation modeling techniques, published data, studies, or other established tools. If the designer elects to use Option 2, the designer would then identify the pre-

development condition of the site and quantify the post-development runoff volume and peak flow discharges that are equivalent to pre-development conditions D.C Department of the Environment will be coming out with a new regulation which will be similar to EISA 438. Currently the storm event that is being considered as the design storm is the 1.2 inch storm. Since this project is located in DC and the local regulating agency that will enforce EISA 438 is DDOE. The required volume will be calculated using the runoff from 1.2 inches storm. The analysis for the 1.7 inch storm was also made for comparison. 3.6.14.1 Analysis The site as defined above, between the face of building and the face of curb is 261,641.6 square feet (6 acres) currently the site has an impervious surface of 204,650.8 square feet (19,012.8 SM). The site is 78.22% impervious. The new work in this area includes new sidewalks, perimeter security features and tree planters which will be designed as Low Impact Development features. Two Architectural alternates have been identified: ALTERNATE C (Building Yard Fence, March 2012 scheme): Out of the total disturbed area of 6 acres,22,967.9 SF (2,133.8 SM) will be new feature and the total impervious surface will be 159,566.8 SF (14,824.3 SM). The site will be 61.0% impervious. PREFERRED ALTERNATE D (Public Space Elements): Out of the total disturbed area of 6 acres, 43,237.4 SF (24,307.4 SM) will be new features to create the public space elements and the total imperious surface will be 162,093.1 SF (15,059.0 SM). The site will be 62.0% impervious. Using TR-55 (Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds) calculate the required retention volume for both the 1.7 inch and 1.2 inch storm from the proposed land use as defined above. (see Appendix). As far as hydrology is the concerned the difference between Alternate C and Alternate D is negligible. They both require the same retention volume. The result was: Retention Volume required for the 1.7 inch storm = 17,097 cubic feet (484 cubic meter) Retention Volume required for the 1.2 inch storm = 9,034 cubic feet. ( 256 cubic meter) It will be proposed to provide storm water retention via groundwater recharge using tree planters. The typical section of these tree planters shall consist of 2-3 inch mulch, 24 inch planting soil, 12 inch filtering sand and 24 “ AASHTO 57 drainage gravel. In order to determine the void ratio of this section consisting of media of different void ration a weighted average was computed (see Appendix) the resulting weighted void ratio for the section is 0.34. Based on this void ratio and the proposed length and width of the planters the total retention volume that can be provided was calculated ( see Appendix). The result was that 6791 cubic feet of retention (192.cubic meter) can be provided.

In addition the of the extensive green roof over the aquarium provides a retention volume of 9,546 cubic feet (270.3 cubic meter). Volume required

Volume required Volume required

Cubic Feet

Cubic Meter

Cubic Feet

Cubic Meter

1.7” Storm

17,097 484 13,337 462

1.2” Storm

9,034 256 13,337 462

Table 1. Summary of Findings

The project full complies with EISA 438 using the 1.2 inch storm criteria and is slightly deficient when using the 1.7 inch storm. Note that underground detention facilities have not been considered as they are not a stormwater retention facility. When those facilities are factored in, the intent of EISA 438, of restoring pre-development hydrology will be met.

HC HOOVER BUILDING RENOVATIONStorm water management Volume provided and required

STREET TREE PLANTERVoid Ratio of the typical Planting Section

2 ft Planting Media1 ft Sand2 ft Gravel

Depth = 5 ftVoid Ration (Vr) Planting Media = 0.3Void Ration (Vr) Sand = 0.3Void Ration (Vr) Gravel = 0.4

Wiegted Void Ration for the Section is 0.34

Widt of Typical Section = 6 ft

Length of toatal Planters

14 th Street NW 381 ft15th Street NW 284.8 ft

Storage Volume Provided

14 th Street NW 3886.2 C.F15th Street NW 2904.96 C.FTotal Volume Provided= 6791.16 C.F 192.3 CM

Volume Provided for Renovation Project.

GREEN ROOFAquarium Green RoofTypical Extensive green Roof section has a nominal thickness of 15 inchesand a weighed void ratio of 0.3

Area provided 2365 SM 25456.03 CF15 " depth Provided volume = 25456.03x1.25x0.3= 9546.0 CF 270.3 CM

Underground Storage Tanks (detention)Volume provide= 55843 CF 1581.4 CM

Total Retention Provided = 16337.2 CF 462.6 CMSUMMARYTotal Retention Volume Required1.7 inch storm 17097 CF 484.21.2 inch storm 9034 CF 255.8

DELON HAMPTON & ASSOCIATESTR-55 WORKSHEET 2 Prepared by: AW

Date: 4/2/2013Checked by: MA

Date:

Project: HC HOOVER BUILDING

Location: Washington DC

Conditions: Developed Condition, ALTERNATE C

Composite Runoff Curve Number Determination:

HydrologicSoil Group

CurveNumber

(CN)

Area, A(sq.ft.)

ProductCN x A

C 98 159,566.8 15,637,546.4

C 74 102,074.8 7,553,535.2

Totals = 261,641.6 23,191,081.6

= 88.64 Use 89.0

Cover Description

Impervious Area (Paved, Roof, Sidewalk ….etc)

Open Space Good Condition ( > 75% grass covered)

= (total product)(total area)

Composite Curve Number (CN)

TR-55 Worksheet 2 _ Curve Number Calculations

DELON HAMPTON & ASSOCIATESTR-55 WORKSHEET 2 Prepared by: AW

Date: 4/2/2013Checked by: MA

Date:



Conditions: Developed Condition, ALTERNATE D

Composite Runoff Curve Number Determination:

HydrologicSoil Group

CurveNumber

(CN)

Area, A(sq.ft.)

ProductCN x A

C 98 162,093.1 15,885,123.8

C 74 99,548.5 7,366,589.0

Cover Description

Impervious Area (Paved, Roof, Sidewalk ….etc)

Open Space Good Condition ( > 75% grass covered)


Totals = 261,641.6 23,251,712.8

= 88.87 Use 89.0Composite Curve Number

(CN) = (total product)

(total area)


DELON HAMPTON & ASSOCIATETR-55 WORKSHEET 4 Prepared by: AW

Date: 4/4/2013Checked by: BW & MA

Date:



Conditions: Developed Condition, ALTERNAT - C

Watershed Data:

6.00 acresDrainage Area…….…….……..…..Am = 0.009 sq mi (acres/640)

Composite Curve Number..……..CN = 89Time of Concentration……..…….Tc = 0.17 hr

Rainfall Distribution Type………….. = IIPond and Swamp Area spreathroughout watershed……………… = 0.00 % of Am

Computing Peak Discharges:

Units Storm 1 Storm 2 Storm 3 Storm 4 Remark

Frequency (Yr) 1 2 15 100Rainfall P (24-hour) (in) 1.20 2.17 6.79 7.30 P (Rainfall)Initial Abstractions (Ia) (in) 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 Use Table 4-1

Compute Ia/P 0.206 0.114 0.036 0.034

Use Ia/P for Exhibit 4-II 0.21 0.11 0.10 0.10

Unit Peak Discharge, qu (csm/in) 900.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 Use Exhibit 4-IIRunoff, Q……………...

Q = (P-0.2S)2 / (P+0.8S) (in) 0.41 1.17 5.50 6.00 S = 1000/CN - 10

Pond/Swamp Adjustment Factor, Fp

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Peak Discharge, Qp (cfs) 3.50 9.88 46.43 50.63 Qp=quAmQFp

9,034 CF256 CM

STORM 1 RUNOFF VOLUME = =

TR-55 Worksheet 4 _ Runoff Calculations_ P 1.2in

DELON HAMPTON & ASSOCIATETR-55 WORKSHEET 4 Prepared by: AW

Date: 4/4/2013Checked by: BW & MA

Date:



Conditions: Developed Condition, ALTERNAT - D

Watershed Data:

6.00 acresDrainage Area…….…….……..…..Am = 0.009 sq mi (acres/640)

Composite Curve Number..……..CN = 89Time of Concentration……..…….Tc = 0.17 hr

Rainfall Distribution Type………….. = IIPond and Swamp Area spreathroughout watershed……………… = 0.00 % of Am

Computing Peak Discharges:

Units Storm 1 Storm 2 Storm 3 Storm 4 Remark

Frequency (Yr) 1 2 15 100Rainfall P (24-hour) (in) 1.20 2.17 6.79 7.30 P (Rainfall)Initial Abstractions (Ia) (in) 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 Use Table 4-1

Compute Ia/P 0.206 0.114 0.036 0.034

Use Ia/P for Exhibit 4-II 0.21 0.11 0.10 0.10

Unit Peak Discharge, qu (csm/in) 900.00 900.00 900.00 900.00 Use Exhibit 4-IIRunoff, Q……………...

Q = (P-0.2S)2 / (P+0.8S) (in) 0.41 1.17 5.50 6.00 S = 1000/CN - 10

Pond/Swamp Adjustment Factor, Fp

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Peak Discharge, Qp (cfs) 3.50 9.88 46.43 50.63 Qp=quAmQFp

9,034 CF256 CM

STORM 1 RUNOFF VOLUME = =

TR-55 Worksheet 4 _ Runoff Calculations_ P 1.2in

GSA Contract No. GS‐11P‐11‐MK‐C‐0045 06 June 2013 Herbert C. Hoover Building Modernization Perimeter Security Design RTKL Associates Inc. Appendix – Graphics and Drawings


VIII. Appendix – Section 106 Documentation: Memorandum of Agreement

FIRST AMENDED

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BY AND AMONG

THE UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, THE NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER AND THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION

REGARDING THE MODERNIZATION OF THE HERBERT C. HOOVER BUILDING AND INSTALLATION OF PERIMETER SECURITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

This First Amended Memorandum of Agreement (“First Amended MOA”) is made as of this __ day of May 2013, by and among the United States General Services Administration (“GSA”), which will act as the lead agency, the United States Department of Commerce (“DoC”), the National Park Service (“NPS”), the National Capital Planning Commission (“NCPC”), the District of Columbia State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”) (referred to collectively herein as the “Parties” or “Signatories” or individually as a “Party” or “Signatory”) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 16 U.S.C. § 470f, and its implementing regulations 36 C.F.R. part 800; and section 110 of the NHPA, 16 U.S.C. § 470h-2. WHEREAS, GSA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, dated April 21, 2010, with DoC, SHPO, and ACHP (“2010 MOA”) to address the effects of the Herbert C. Hoover Building modernization project (the Undertaking) under Section 106 of the NHPA , and is adding the installation of perimeter security to the Undertaking with this First Amended MOA; and, WHEREAS, The Herbert C. Hoover Building is located at 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC (“Property”), was constructed in 1932 as the headquarters for the DoC; is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (“National Register”) as a contributing structure in the Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site (“PANHS”) and the Federal Triangle Historic District, which were listed on the National Register in 1965 and 1968, respectively; and is within the L’Enfant Plan, which was listed on the National Register in 1997; and, WHEREAS, GSA entered into a Delegation Agreement with the DoC on December 14, 1989, re-delegated on August 22, 1994, and again on November 26, 1997, for the ongoing management and operation of the Property ad infinitum or until either agency seeks to change the Delegation Agreement; and, WHEREAS, GSA plans to modernize the Property in eight phases over a 15 year period. Phase one of the modernization was initiated in 2007 and completed in 2010. Phase one was determined to have no adverse effect on the Property by GSA, and such was confirmed in writing by the SHPO on December 4, 2007 (Appendix A), prior to the commencement of phase one; and, WHEREAS, GSA received funding for Phases two and three of the Undertaking through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) and construction commenced after the 2010 MOA was executed. With this First Amended MOA, Phase three now includes installation of perimeter security per the 2013 Perimeter Security Design (Appendix B); and,

2

WHEREAS, GSA plans to carry out the remaining phases of the modernization of the Property, detailed in the phasing diagram and phasing summary (Appendix C), which will include an upgrade of general office space, elevator lobbies, corridors, toilet rooms; an upgrade of heating, ventilating and air conditioning (“HVAC”) and interior and exterior utility systems; rehabilitation of interiors and exteriors; and courtyard landscape rehabilitation, together referred to as the Undertaking (“Undertaking”), as documented in the attached 2010 Historic Preservation Report and Submission Drawings (Appendices D and E, respectively); and, WHEREAS, the Undertaking also includes the following outstanding design elements (“Outstanding Design Elements:”): accessibility upgrades to comply with the Architectural Barriers Act (“ABA”); rehabilitation of the perimeter landscape and associated tree relocation; installation of perimeter security to comply with the Interagency Security Committee (ISC) guidelines and standards for protecting a Level IV federal building at an Anti Terrorism/Force Protection (ATFP or AT/FP) Ram Barrier Protection K4 specification; rehabilitation of the historic area currently occupied by the National Aquarium into a lower level lobby; installation of interior thermal/blast resistant windows; the conversion of the historic delivery room; and proposed construction of a new tenant space and entrance for the National Aquarium with an alternate treatment for Constitution Avenue (Appendix F) to account for the National Aquarium’s tentative tenancy of that area. Designs for these Outstanding Design Elements will require additional review as set forth in Stipulation III of this First Amended MOA; and, WHEREAS, GSA has defined the Undertaking’s Area of Potential Effect (APE) (Appendix G) as the area bounded by 12th Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Madison Drive; west on Madison Drive to 14th Street, south on 14th Street to Independence Avenue, SW; west on Independence Avenue to the alignment of 15th Street, NW; south on 15th Street, SW, to the Tidal Basin; west along the Tidal Basin to north on 17th Street; north on 17th Street to State Place, NW; east on State Place, NW, around the White House South Lawn; north on East Executive Drive to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW; east on Pennsylvania Avenue to 15th Street, NW; south on 15th Street to F Street, NW; east on F Street to 13th Street, NW; south on 13th Street to Pennsylvania Avenue, NW; and southeast on Pennsylvania Avenue to 12th Street, NW.; and includes portions of the Federal Triangle National Historic District, the Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site, the Ellipse, the Washington Monument Grounds and the National Mall Historic District; and, WHEREAS, portions of the Undertaking are proposed in Public Space (Appendix H, GSA to Ms. Karina Ricks, DDOT), and GSA has coordinated with the District of Columbia and will seek to obtain Public Space permits for the use of the property under the District’s control; and, WHEREAS, the area between the north building face and the curb between 14th and 15th Streets, NW, including areas to east and west of building face along Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, is within the PANHS and is subject to the laws, regulations and policies for the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation’s Pennsylvania Avenue Plan, (36 C.F.R. Part 910); and, WHEREAS, GSA has coordinated with NPS for work proposed within the PANHS and will act as lead agency for NPS compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, and will obtain a construction permit from NPS for this work; and, WHEREAS, NCPC will review the Undertaking pursuant to the National Capital Planning Act of 1952 and has designated GSA lead agency for NCPC’s compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.2(a); and, WHEREAS, GSA conducted an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Undertaking in 2010 and is conducting a Supplemental EA for the revised Undertaking, and has coordinated Section 106

3

consultation with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.8(a); and, WHEREAS, GSA determined that the Undertaking will have an adverse effect on historic properties within the APE (Appendix I, revised Determination of Effects Letter); and has the potential to adversely affect archaeological resources including the Washington Canal (51SE047), a National Register-eligible site. A survey to identify the presence of the Washington Canal within the Property has not been conducted, and it is not known if remains of the Washington Canal are present. GSA determined that due to the potential proximity of the National Register-eligible site, monitoring during ground-disturbing activities for the Undertaking is necessary; and, WHEREAS, the Signatories agree that a flexible, phased approach to the identification and evaluation of archaeological resources, starting with geo-archaeological consultation, and the application of the criteria of adverse effect, as appropriate; and, WHEREAS, GSA identified in consultation that there are no federally recognized Indian tribes in the District of Columbia and GSA, in consultation with the SHPO, will make a good faith effort to identify and contact other appropriate Indian tribes that may attach religious and cultural significance to any historic property that may be affected by the Undertaking; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 C.F.R. § 800.6(a)(1), GSA notified the ACHP of the GSA’s adverse effect determination with the specified documentation, and the ACHP chose to participate in the consultation pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 800.6(a)(1)(iii); and, WHEREAS, GSA identified, after consultation pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(f), the following as Consulting Parties: the United States Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), the National Aquarium, the Smithsonian Institution, , the D.C. Department of Transportation (DDOT) and the D.C. Office of Planning (Consulting Parties). The following organizations were also invited to participate as consulting parties, but did not respond: the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID), the United States Internal Revenue Service, the JW Marriott Hotel, the National Coalition to Save Our Mall, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, the U.S. Capitol Historical Society, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Willard Inter-Continental Washington Hotel, the Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2F, Committee of 100 on the Federal City, and the D.C. Preservation League; and, NOW THEREFORE, the Signatories agree that the Undertaking will be implemented in accordance with the following Stipulations, to take into account the Undertaking’s effects on historic properties.

STIPULATIONS GSA will ensure that the following Stipulations (“Stipulations”) are implemented:

I. General Requirements The Undertaking for the Property will be executed in accordance with the Historic Preservation Report and Submission Drawings, attached as Appendices D and E respectively, which detail the design approach, treatment of affected character-defining features, and specific mitigation, minimization and avoidance measures, which are summarized in Stipulation II.B. A. Applicable Codes and Standards. The Undertaking was planned and developed and will be executed

in a manner consistent with the recommended approaches contained in the Secretary of the

4

Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, the Submission Drawings (Appendix E), GSA’s Technical Preservation Guidelines, (http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/21119), Stipulation II.B.1., regulations associated with Stipulation IV. as applicable, and prevailing applicable codes.

B. Qualifications. GSA will ensure that all historic preservation and archaeology work performed by

GSA or on its behalf pursuant to this MOA will be accomplished by or under the direct supervision of a person or persons who meet(s) or exceed(s) the pertinent qualifications in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, As Amended and Annotated (http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm) in those areas in which the qualifications are applicable for the specific work performed.

II. Undertaking Scope In accordance with Stipulation I. of this First Amended MOA, GSA will carry out the Undertaking, which will have an adverse effect on historic property within the APE. As part of the Undertaking, GSA will also carry out actions for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating adverse effects caused by the Undertaking, as noted below and in the 2010 Historic Preservation Report, Modernization Submission Drawings, and 2013 Perimeter Security Design (Appendices D, E, and B, respectively). A. Description of Adverse Effects

1. Additions.

a. Courtyard One Electrical Equipment Enclosure. The courtyard contained a one-story building with roof-top mechanical units. An enclosed three-story structure was added to the top of the existing one-story building to house electrical equipment that was located in the basement and other areas throughout the Property.

b. National Aquarium Relocation and Addition. The relocated National Aquarium is proposed to be below-grade, occupying approximately 10,000 gross square feet of the southern quarter of the Property at Constitution Avenue. The relocated National Aquarium entrance on Constitution Avenue is proposed to occupy the area currently between the building and the sidewalk, and between the two existing granite staircases. The historic area-way, directly adjacent to the building, will be filled in with new construction associated with the addition; original below-grade façade material will be removed, and original below-grade window openings will be altered. In the event that the National Aquarium does not to occupy space due to funding limitations, GSA has developed an alternative treatment for Constitution Avenue to provide perimeter security (Appendix F), which will be reviewed in accordance with Stipulation III.

2. Façade Alterations.

a. Courtyard Window Removal and Replacement. GSA will remove five windows from Courtyard Three and two windows from Courtyard Four, along with a minimal amount of the adjacent wall material, so as to create at-grade door openings.

b. Installation of ABA Ramps. ABA compliant ramps are proposed by GSA for the Property’s main 14th Street entrance and at two of the Property’s entrance locations on 15th Street. All alterations at the entries will be executed to maximize retention of original materials and maintain visual consistency with historic materials.

http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm

http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_9.htm

5

3. Interior Alterations. a. Historic National Aquarium/Lower Level Lobby. The National Aquarium will be

relocated to the Constitution Avenue end of the building; the historic space currently occupied by the National Aquarium will be converted into a lower level lobby, adjacent to the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center tunnel entrance. An opening will be created in the existing south wall of the historic space to create access to the new lower level lobby.

b. Historic Delivery Room. GSA will convert this space adjacent to the main library for an alternate use, which will be executed to maximize retention of original materials where possible.

c. Lobby Security Area. The 14th Street entry vestibule will be altered so that a security screening area can be created off of the main 14th Street lobby; an interior vestibule wall will be removed.

d. Blast Window Installation. GSA will install interior thermal/blast resistant windows on street-facing windows on the property.

e. Toilet Rooms, Floors Two Through Seven. The upper floor toilet rooms will be demolished and reconfigured to accommodate ABA requirements and to meet energy and water conservation goals.

4. Landscape Alterations and Site Work.

a. Landscape Alterations. GSA’s perimeter landscape rehabilitation includes replacement of non-historic material in the planting beds and grounds with low turf or ground cover and boxwood hedges and relocation of Willow Elms. The perimeter landscape rehabilitation is based on the original planting scheme (Appendix J) from 1935. Depending on the level of construction impacts, site conditions and tree health, the historic magnolias planted in the 1930’s will be retained, relocated within the APE, or replaced with new magnolias. The perimeter landscape rehabilitation will occur in accordance with Stipulations II.B. and III., in coordination with installation of ABA ramps (Stipulation II.A.2.b), site and utility work (Stipulation II.A.4.b), perimeter security and prior to ground disturbance in the vicinity of the planting beds and grounds.

b. Site and Utility Work. This work includes trenching and utility installation at existing utility locations, footings for ABA ramps, excavations for the relocated National Aquarium entrance and perimeter security footings. The site and utility work is not an outstanding design element. GSA will ensure that all work will be executed in accordance with Stipulation II.B.1.

c. Perimeter Security Work. This work includes installing bollards, fencing, security sidewalk treatments, seating nodes, and bicycle racks. In the event that the National Aquarium does not occupy space along Constitution Avenue, GSA has developed a perimeter security alternate treatment for that area, for review in accordance with Stipulation III.

B. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures

1. Avoidance a. Seismic Analysis and Movement Monitoring. A seismic analysis of the Property will

be conducted, if deemed necessary by GSA, prior to any ground-disturbing activity on the Property. Movement monitoring will be implemented as warranted thereafter at both the Property and other historic properties within the APE. GSA will consider the results of the seismic analysis or analyses, as the case may be, so

6

that the structural integrity of the Property and other National Register-listed or -eligible properties within the APE is/are not compromised.

b. Archaeological Monitoring. Due to the potential proximity of the National Register-eligible site, the Washington Canal (51SE047), GSA will conduct archaeological monitoring during ground-disturbing activities for the Undertaking, and will follow Stipulation IV.B.

c. Protective Measures. Protective measures will be taken to protect historic features such as masonry, bronze work and landscaping as appropriate. The protective measures will apply to all construction and staging activities.

2. Minimization

a. Additions and Alterations. In the Courtyard One electrical equipment enclosure area, the historic windows will be retained in place with opaque glazing replacing extant clear glazing, with the exception of floors two and four on the north end of the enclosure, where the windows will be removed and stored, and the window openings converted to doors designed in keeping with extant non-historic compatible doors at the Property. The effect of the proposed National Aquarium entrance will be minimized in part through sensitive design; the installation of ABA compliant ramps will be executed to maximize retention of original materials and maintain visual consistency with historic materials. The Courtyard Window Removal and Replacement will be conducted so as to allow for minimal removal of adjacent wall material, the windows will be replaced with doors designed in keeping with extant non-historic compatible doors at the Property, and the original windows will be stored at the Property.

b. Landscape Rehabilitation. Per Stipulation II.A.4.a., during the perimeter landscape rehabilitation, the historic magnolia trees will be maintained in place when minimally impacted by construction activity, relocated on site to avoid significant impacts when the health of the tree permits, or relocated within the APE when site conditions do not allow on site replanting. When significant impacts are anticipated and the health of the tree will not allow relocation or site conditions do not allow relocation on site, new magnolias will be planted on site to maintain the historic character of the landscape, and such will be reviewed in accordance with Stipulation III. Where perimeter security features will impact the existing four Willow Elms on Pennsylvania Avenue, the affected trees will be relocated to adjacent abandoned tree pits within the APE. .

c. Interior Rehabilitation and Alteration. Within the historic National Aquarium space, GSA will rehabilitate and/or replace the historic finishes in-kind. GSA will retain the original bronze tank frames as part of an interpretive program for the space. Within the Historic Delivery Room, a limited number of shelves will be retained by GSA in the stack room, as a reference to the original use of the room. In the auditorium, a mural restoration will occur, along with rehabilitation of lighting and finishes. Previously altered areas within the Property, including the library with its vaulted ceiling and skylight, the corridors, elevator lobbies, and the toilet rooms will also be rehabilitated. For the toilet rooms, on floors two through seven, historic materials will be salvaged for use in the rehabilitation of the first floor historic toilet rooms.

d. Courtyard Landscape Rehabilitation. In Courtyards Three and Four, the landscaping will be rehabilitated, with fountains and footpaths restored by GSA.

7

3. Mitigation a. Documentation. Within 90 days following the signing of this First Amended MOA,

GSA will compile a bound collection of labeled historic and contemporary photographs that will be given to the SHPO and the DoC and made available at the GSA National Capital Region Resource Library, for future research and study. This documentation will also be digitized and made available on a publically accessible website administered by GSA.

b. Interior Interpretation. Prior to the commencement of construction in the historic space currently occupied by the National Aquarium, GSA will develop an interpretive program about that space, utilizing salvaged original bronze tank frames, in consultation with the SHPO. The interpretive materials will be placed in the new lower level lobby, designed per Stipulation II.A.3.a., and will also be placed on display in the relocated National Aquarium on the Property. This documentation will also be digitized and made available on a publically accessible website administered by GSA.

c. Exterior Interpretation. GSA will develop interpretive information on the history and agencies that were historically part of the DoC and are depicted in the iconography on the building facade. Interpretive efforts will include at a minimum ten plaques or other site fixtures that will be incorporated into the perimeter security elements, at seating nodes, and/or in other pedestrian gathering locations. Interpretive concept materials will be submitted to the SHPO in accordance with Stipulation III. within 90 days of execution of this First Amended MOA. GSA will install interpretive signage and make the content available on publicly accessible websites administered by GSA within 60 days of completion of the perimeter security installation.

III. Design Review and Consultation for Outstanding Design Elements A. Project Document Review. For all Outstanding Design Elements, GSA will prepare and submit

project documents and drawings at the 35 and 65 percent design development stage to the SHPO for review and consultation. SHPO will provide written comments within 30 calendar days.

B. Site Visits. If necessary for review, the SHPO may request a site visit within the reviewing period. GSA will accommodate this request within two business days.

C. Consideration of Written Comments. GSA will consider timely written comments, to the fullest

reasonable extent. Comments will be incorporated into the Submission Drawings (Appendices B, E, and F). GSA will make written comments available to the other Signatories, and, upon request, any Consulting Parties.

D. Objections to Comments. Should GSA object to any comments, GSA will provide the SHPO with

a written explanation of its objection, and will initiate consultation with the same to resolve the objection. If no agreement is reached within ten calendar days following SHPO’s receipt of GSA’s written explanation, GSA will request the ACHP to review the dispute pursuant to Stipulation V.

E. Failure to Comment. If the SHPO does not provide written comments within the agreed upon

timeframes noted above, GSA may assume that the SHPO does not have any comments

8

regarding the project documents, and GSA may proceed in accordance with its project documents.

IV. Emergencies, Archaeology and Unanticipated Adverse Effects A. Unanticipated Adverse Effects. If GSA determines that the Undertaking or changes to the

Undertaking scope have caused or may result in unanticipated adverse effects to the Property prior to completion of the Undertaking, GSA will ensure that the SHPO and the ACHP are notified of such unanticipated adverse effects within five calendar days of GSA's learning of such unanticipated adverse effects, and will comply with 36 C.F.R. § 800.13(b).

B. Archaeology. In the event of an unanticipated discovery or an archaeological discovery associated with the Washington Canal (51SE047), which is eligible for the National Register, during Undertaking construction or excavation, GSA will notify the SHPO within 24 hours to initiate consultation and proceed in accordance with the Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in the District of Columbia (1998 as amended), and 36 C.F.R. § 800.13(b) to determine the level and type of recording or recovery, as necessary.

C. Emergencies. GSA will ensure that, in the case of an immediate rescue and salvage operation on

the Property that is required because of an emergency (i.e., a disaster or emergency declaration by the President or the Mayor of Washington, DC, or another threat to life or property) (Emergency) that may adversely affect the Property, GSA will use its best efforts to notify the SHPO and the ACHP of such operations within two calendar days after the commencement of such operations. If GSA proposes such an emergency undertaking, which GSA determines may have an adverse effect on the Property, as an essential and immediate response to an Emergency declaration, GSA will notify the SHPO and the ACHP and afford the SHPO and the ACHP an opportunity to comment within three calendar days of such notification. If GSA determines that circumstances do not permit three calendar days for comment, then GSA will notify the SHPO and the ACHP and invite comments within the time available. GSA will consider, as applicable in light of the urgency of the circumstances, any comments received in reaching a decision on how to proceed with the emergency undertaking. These emergency procedures apply only to undertakings that may have an adverse effect on the Property and that will be implemented within thirty calendar days after the Emergency occurs. GSA may request an extension of the period of applicability from the SHPO and the ACHP prior to the expiration of the thirty calendar days. Nothing in this Agreement will be deemed to prevent GSA from taking immediate rescue and salvage operations to preserve life or property, such operations being exempt from Section 106 review per 36 C.F.R. § 800.12(d).

V. Dispute Resolution

Objections: Should any Party to this First Amended MOA object to any action carried out or

proposed by GSA with respect to the implementation of this First Amended MOA, GSA will consult with the objecting Party to resolve the objection. 1. If, after initiating such consultation, GSA determines that the objection cannot be resolved

through consultation, GSA will forward all documentation including without limit, documentation of GSA’s responses to the objections, as submitted by the Party or Parties

9

relevant to the objection, to the ACHP. Within 30 days after receipt of all adequate documentation, the ACHP will exercise one of the following options:

a. Upon receipt of documentation from GSA, the ACHP will review and advise GSA

on the resolution of the objection. GSA will reach a final decision regarding the dispute after taking into account any timely advice provided by the ACHP, and all timely comments from the Parties to the First Amended MOA, and providing a written response to such advice and comments.

b. If the ACHP does not provide written advice to GSA regarding the dispute within

30 days after receipt of adequate documentation, GSA may proceed to render a final decision regarding the dispute. In reaching its decision, GSA will take into account all timely comments regarding the dispute from the Parties to this First Amended MOA. Prior to reaching a final decision on the dispute, GSA will prepare a written response that takes into account any timely advice or comments regarding the dispute from the ACHP and any Signatory or Signatories, and provide them with a written response, GSA will then proceed according to its final decision.

2. GSA’s responsibility to carry out all other actions subject to the terms of this First Amended

MOA that are not subject to the dispute, remain unchanged. GSA will notify all Parties of its decision in writing before implementing that portion of the Undertaking subject to dispute under this stipulation.

VI. Amendments

If any Signatory to this First Amended MOA determines that its terms will not or cannot be carried out or that an amendment to its terms must be made, that Party will immediately consult with the other Parties to develop an amendment to the First Amended MOA. The amendment will be effective on the date a copy signed by all of the original Signatories is filed with the ACHP. If the Signatories cannot agree to appropriate terms to amend the First Amended MOA, within 30 days (or another time period agreed to by all Signatories), any Signatory may terminate the First Amended MOA in accordance with Stipulation VII. VII. Termination

If this First Amended MOA is not amended following the consultation set out in Stipulation VI., it may be terminated by any Signatory through written notice to the other Signatories. Within 30 days following termination, GSA will notify the Signatories if it will initiate consultation to execute a new First Amended MOA with the Signatories under 36 C.F.R. § 800.6 or request, take into account, and respond to the comments of the ACHP under 36 C.F.R. § 800.7(c), and proceed accordingly. VIII. Availability of Funds

This First Amended MOA is subject to applicable laws and regulations. As to the Signatories only, fulfillment of this First Amended MOA is subject, pursuant to the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341 et seq., to the availability of funds. This First Amended MOA is not an obligation of funds in advance of an appropriation of such funds, and it does not constitute authority for the expenditure of funds. If a Signatory does not have sufficient funds available to fulfill the stipulations of this First Amended MOA, such Signatory will so notify the other Signatories and will take such actions as are necessary to comply with all requirements of 36 C.F.R. part 800. Nothing in this First Amended MOA will be deemed to

10

authorize an expenditure of funds in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act. GSA will make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the funding necessary to implement this First Amended MOA.

IX. Duration This First Amended MOA will be null and void if its terms are not carried out within 15 years from the date of its execution. Prior to such time, GSA may consult with the other Signatories to reconsider the terms of this First Amended MOA and amend it in accordance with Stipulation VI. X. Monitoring and Reporting Following the execution of this First Amended MOA until it expires or is terminated, GSA will, at the completion of each phase, provide the Signatories to this First Amended MOA a summary preservation report detailing work undertaken pursuant to its terms. Such report will include any scheduling changes proposed, any problems encountered, and any disputes and objections received in GSA’s efforts to carry out the terms of this First Amended MOA. XI. Signatures and Effective Date

Execution of this First Amended MOA by the Signatories, and implementation of its terms evidence that GSA, NCPC, and NPS have taken into account the effects of this Undertaking on historic properties and afforded the ACHP an opportunity to comment. This First Amended MOA will be effective as of the latest date of the signature of any Signatory hereto, which such Signatory will insert such date in the first paragraph on the first page of this First Amended MOA.

(See Following Pages for Signatures) APPENDICES Appendix A Phase I SHPO Concurrence Letter, December 4, 2007 Appendix B Perimeter Security Drawings Appendix C Phasing Diagram Appendix D Historic Preservation Report Appendix E Modernization Submission Drawings Appendix F Alternative Treatment for Constitution Avenue Appendix G Revised Area of Potential Effect Appendix H GSA Letter to DDOT, March 15, 2010 Appendix I Determination of Effects Letter, March 26, 2013 Appendix J 1935 Planting Scheme

13

FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE By: _________________________________________________________________ Edward C. Horton Date Acting Director for Administrative Services

14

FOR THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE By: _________________________________________________________________ Stephen Whitesell Regional Director, National Capitol Region

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER By: Date: 5/17/2013 David Maloney State Historic Preservation Officer

17

FOR THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION By: _________________________________________________________________ John M. Fowler Date Executive Director

GSA Contract No. GS‐11P‐11‐MK‐C‐0045 06 June 2013 Herbert C. Hoover Building Modernization Perimeter Security Design RTKL Associates Inc. Appendix – Graphics and Drawings


IX. Appendix – Graphics and Drawings