Posts about NCPC

Can the monument area be less forbidding to tourists, and something other than a sun-parched forced march between the more tree-filled areas with museums to the east and memorials to the west? What would you like to see in this area?

DCmud reports that the organizers hope to select five finalists by next summer and then let the public vote among them. The agencies with jurisdiction over the area, the National Park Service, NCPC, and the Commission on Fine Arts, haven't endorsed this competition, but perhaps good ideas will gain some traction.

Photo by cliff1066 on Flickr.

Another option would be to use the Whitten Building (blue oval), which currenly houses the Department of Agriculture. The museum would add two stories atop on of the building's wings and build a structure in an adjacent surface parking lot. Filling in a parking lot is appealing, but the Coalition wonders if altering one wing of this "symmetrical, beaux-arts building" would pass historic muster.

The other two options involve building in what is currently open space. One site (purple oval, above) is adjacent to the Capitol between Pennsylvania, Constitution, and 1st NW, the site directly opposite the Botanic Garden. DCmud notes that this was originally envisioned to house a museum by the McMillan Plan. However, the Architect of the Capitol controls this land, and rejected it for the African-American museum.

Finally, there's the land between 14th and 15th, SW along Independence, opposite the site for the African-American museum. A new building would be built here, and offices would go in the historic Yates Building across Independence. The Coalition sees that as the most likely but also very undesirable, because it's considered part of the Washington Monument grounds. However, NPS didn't object to this site at the NCPC meeting.

What do you think of these sites? The Coalition also notes that NCPC only held an "informational" presentation, which afforded no opportunity for public comment, and urged NCPC to engage in a public discussion about this issue.

While Mall proliferation is a real problem, now that the American Indians and African-Americans are getting a museum, it seems not unreasonable for Latinos to get one as well, as one of the US's largest minority groups. But it's important to resist further proliferation, because there is an endless list of other groups as well.

As DCmud jokingly notes, "Fear not, Lithuanians and Samoans, you too may someday have your chance." That would be disastrous. It's also perhaps somewhat unlikely, but what about non-ethnic minorities? Should there be a women's museum and a museum about elderly people and one for persons with disabilities?

The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Visitors center was more troubling because it opened the door to visitors' centers for veterans of every war. I'm less disturbed by more cultural museums on the Mall than memorials or memorial visitors' centers. There are always going to be more wars and more great leaders, and unless we start retiring memorials as Philip Kennicott suggested, they threaten to clutter the Mall up without pause for every historic event or figure that has a number of dedicated adherents.

Streetcar conflicts with NPS vistas.

Such incidental conflicts can be easily avoided with existing, inexpensive battery technology, while still allowing the most affordable and efficient power system (wires) to be used throughout most of the system. It's a win-win.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

In her usual diplomatic yet effective style, Tregoning wrote,

As you may know, I was very much looking forward to your leadership of the Commission and based on my own experience working with you (recently and when you were part of Governor Kaine's Administration), I had complete faith in your good will and candor. I particularly relied on your representation in your communication to the Commission in mid-June:

I am aware that each Commission member has his or her own thoughts over streetcars. Therefore, in discussions with other parties, we are being mindful not to suggest that the Commission has agreed to anything at all. ...

Thus, I was particularly disappointed and concerned about the letters that went out under your signature this past week.

Items that impact the Mall and views of major monuments are generally agreed to be part of the federal interest, and the Council's initial legislation clearly offered those protections while the final emergency overhead wire legislation went even further. All new streetcar purchases will be required by law to operate for one mile without wires, and the Council will need to approve any new segments including a plan detailing the potential impacts on view corridors or historic districts.

However, when the Council declined to expand NCPC's approval authorities beyond the powers granted by federal statute (which it cannot do in any event), the seemingly petty response was a letter to the FTA. ...

I especially regret the loss of comity and the potential harm to the heretofore excellent working relationship between the District and the NCPC, but this is an issue of democracy and home rule and thus a matter of principle for the District.

I hope we can endeavor to get beyond this disagreement and regain a state of mutual respect and cooperation, but the path forward will not be via one of us seeking to restrict the funding of the other.

She's being too kind; NCPC, like the Committee of 100, seemed very unconcerned about what goes on east of the Anacostia until it became politically expedient to suddenly want to protect views all across the city from the pesky wires that would interfere with looking at all the freeways, power plants, and aboveground power lines that nobody had objected to before.

Commission members are slated to discuss the wire issue today in executive session. I realize there are legal opinions involved, but it's ironic that NCPC will now be talking in secret about their position on wires given that one of Bryant's arguments for a stepped-up NCPC role was to ensure public participation. Did they really want public participation or just their own?

Miller's letter was in the body of an email, which I have reproduced below; here are Harriet Tregoning's and Gabe Klein's letters.

From: Miller, Robert (COUNCIL)
Sent: Mon 6/28/2010 1:27 PM
To: Bryant, Preston; Commission Members
Cc: Young, Deborah B.; Acosta, Marcel C.
Subject: RE: streetcar issue - update #3

Preston,

A direct response from Chairman Gray to your 6/24/10 letter to the DC Council may be forthcoming, sometime after consideration by the Council of the pending legislation discussed in your letter, which would amend the existing law regarding overhead wires in the L'Enfant City.

However, in the meantime, I must strongly object to your 6/24/10 letter to the Federal Transit Administration, opposing the District's $25 million federal grant application. The purpose of this application has nothing to do with the existing law that would be amended by the Council's pending legislation. Rather, the purpose of the grant is to extend the tracks on the H Street-Benning line from Oklahoma Avenue to the Benning Road Metro - an area of the city not even affected by the existing overhead wires prohibition. These grant dollars are critical to the District's efforts to extend economic revitalization and transportation connections to one of the most underserved areas in the city located east of the Anacostia River.

I also must object to the statement in your letter to FTA that "NCPC maintains Council's legislative action is contrary to a legal opinion issued by NCPC's General Counsel." As you well know, no vote has been taken by NCPC to date on the legality of the pending legislation, and for you to have characterized that as the NCPC position in your letter to FTA — as opposed to your position or the NCPC General Counsel's position — is misleading. The cited legal opinion has not even been shared with me as vice chair of NCPC, nor I believe with any District members of NCPC (although it was verbally summarized and discussed at NCPC's June 2010 executive session), despite the fact that the District has been open in providing NCPC with two other legal opinions (one by the DC Office of Attorney General, and one by attorney Andrea Ferster) which each concluded that the District has the authority to enact the proposed legislation.

Regarding your substantive concerns about the legislation, it is my understanding that the current draft of the bill includes several accommodations to federal interest and historic viewshed concerns, and the District executive and Council continue to work with NCPC on processes going forward to ensure that federal interests and historic viewsheds are protected, which I hope would be incorporated in a Memorandum of Understanding between the executive and NCPC. However, I am sure you would agree that the Council has no authority to provide NCPC with approval authority over any matter, as had been proposed by NCPC staff to Councilmember Wells' staff.

I respectfully request your withdrawal of the 6/24/10 letter to FTA, which I would characterize as a form of bureaucratic blackmail that is contrary to the best interests of residents, workers, and visitors in the District of Columbia.

Rob

Robert Miller
Legislative Counsel to
DC Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray
The John A. Wilson Building
1350 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Suite 504
Washington, DC 20004

The second, on the other hand, lines the E Street facade with retail bays. The second floor cafeteria could also become accessible to the public through a separate stair and elevator from one of the storefronts. The entrance would be on the ground floor, and the only bollards would block the two driveways into the building.

GSA is proposing both options because they are still deciding whether they will "implement permanent perimeter security" at the building. Hopefully they can decide it's not necessary. The proliferation of bollards in recent years has seriously degraded the walkability of Washington, for uncertain benefit. It's terrific that GSA is open to a less fortress-like plan.

The full Commission didn't even approve these letters, despite their appearing on official NCPC letterhead. According to people who've spoken with various NCPC representatives, some members don't personally like wires, or aren't convinced that streetcars are worth the money. Some commenters here share some of these concerns.

However, appointees of the President, the Park Service, DoD, GSA, and Congress should not be deciding what individual DC neighborhoods should look like or what is or isn't a prudent investment of capital dollars. That's why we have a democratic political process of home rule, and that's what democracy is about. People get to decide for themselves instead of having some "king" decide for them.

Bryant also expresses concern that the public be involved in the streetcar planning. That is important, but since when is this NCPC's responsibility? They haven't done the same for other, not so federal items in the past.

H Street wants the streetcar. Downtown businesses want the streetcar. Georgia Avenue wants the streetcar. It doesn't affect the federal government if there are streetcars there, even ones with wires, except right past the national parks and on the view corridors. The NCPC members should stop trying to be the Mayor of DC and worry about the real federal interest instead of their personal interest.

We're working on a page for you to reach out to NCPC members about this, but in the meantime, feel free to email your Councilmembers and the Mayor. Thank them for their streetcar support so far and encourage them to stand up for our right to home rule.

NCPC Chairman Preston Bryant sent a memo to the other Commissioners saying that,

There are sticking points as to NCPC's suggested amendments for our proposed role in the planning and approval process so that we can achieve a certain level of involvement and can properly defend any decisions we make in terms of the streetcar plan and overhead wires.

NCPC reserves the right to bring suit on this matter. Whether we exercise that option remains to be seen and would require further discussion by the Commission.

Last, as things appear to be unfolding where NCPC cannot support the District legislation, it is likely that we will not be able to positively opine on the District's Urban Circulator Grant funding application to the Federal Transit Administration or on future requests for federal funding from the FTA. The District's application to the FTA is for upwards of $25 million. This is substantial funding.

Absent an agreement being struck between NCPC and the District on the proposed legislation, NCPC will likely notify the FTA of our legal opinion concerning overhead wires and other federal interests.

Should the FTA not grant this or future funding, it calls into question the District's ability to go forward with the streetcar project. Thus, a lot depends on NCPC getting comfortable with the proposed District legislation.

I can understand NCPC's desire to have the power to ensure wires don't go across major viewsheds, like Pennsylvania Avenue or 16th Street. Therefore, NCPC should identify a narrow set of corridors that do matter, like any road with a clear view of the Capitol, White House, or one of the three major monuments, and ensure that batteries are used instead of wires in any of those areas.

But blocks which feel like part of a commercial district instead of a monumental extension of the Mall, like most of K Street, don't need to be included. It doesn't really affect the "federal interest" what those streets look like any more than there's a federal interest in the streets of Crystal City.

If DC gives up some of its legal right to govern its streets and NCPC ends up being particularly obstinate, requiring wireless operation everywhere west of Union Station even on blocks without any important views on H and K Streets NW, DC could end up shooting itself in the foot. On the other hand, maybe averting conflict is best and once the wires are up on H, everyone will look at them and realize it's all a tempest in a teapot and they aren't nearly as intrusive as some feared.