LOCATION OF A FEDERAL ESTABLISHMENT IN THE LANGLEY, VA AREA.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 38
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2001
• Sequence Number: 10
• Publication Date: March 11, 1955
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
APPENDIX
NATI1NAL CAPITAL REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
7013 Interior Building
Washington 25, D.C.
CIRCULAR MEMORANDUM No, 40
March 11, 3.955
TO: ? Members, Alternates and Staff'
FROY: ,Paul C. Watt, Director
SUBiCT: Locetion of 'a federal establishment in the Langley1 Va, area.
A.- General observations as tr present status of this location in area plans.
The following informeti-n presents the planning concepts related to
this area as developed in the Arlington Master Plan; the regional proposals
of the 1950 Comprehmsive Plant prepared by the National Capital Plawcbmg.
Commission, *id) was coordinated with all of the jurisdictions in the
region; and the pending Master Plan. being prepared in Fairfax County'
Land use and zoning. The present land use and zoning practices
being following in tiia area call for a low density development, with lot
areas generally recommended to be at least one acre or more. This is sup-
portedhy.the existing land use which is predominantly the last remaining
'Ismail estate" type of land use this Close in, within the metropolitan
region, :The existing toning reflects this low density as well as a minienzat
!agent otoemmereial development in the area.
Utilities. -'-The proposals for fUture water and sewer service in
this iFirwe--7Fielso dominant reasons for prescribing a XOff density. There
is a sewage treatment plant being designed for the area at the present time,
which is proposed :to serve the area at the rate of approximately 10 persons
to the acre. The present muter service is being provided partly through
ground gator facilities and partly by service from the District of Columbia..
11:?,vandtransit. ern. The Highway Plan presently proposes the
O.oemshincti Memor1 Parkway and the Fairfax No. 1 Expressway as the
major radials servine this area, with the outer belt and intermediate belt
expressways Serving as the major circumferential distributors. These
facilities are proposed to be of the highest standard. Virginia route Nos,
21 2, 3, 193and.309 are proposed as major highways drupgrading existing
standards. None of these are proposed as controlled access facilities.
The expressways and parkways would have probable priority of constructien.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
? 2
The present density concepts would not support a high type of mass
transit service.
School, park and conservation _program. The immediate school needs
are not evident unair existing -iiis:`-torm drainage and park considera-
tions are dependent on open flood plains and conservation practices in the
stream, valleys, which are more easily adapted to a low density development.
B. Location of a major facility of the type proposed in this section of
the region raises a number ok questions relative to Rimming comsillira?
tions that should be thoroughly discussed by the,Coundif and staff prior
TE-Wiecommendation.
Can we assure that the impact Of such a proposal means a com-
pletely new planning concept for this area with the following results:
(a) Higher density of population with possible zones for multiple..
family use and minimum single-family lot areas.
(14 A substantial increase in commercial zones for shopping
centers.
(c) A higher type sewage treatment as well as a much higher
prop-sed service capacity.
(d) Expanded water service fromthe.District of Columbia system.
(e) Changes in the highway and bridge plan, particularly as to
timing and priority of projects.
(f) Provision for adequate transit service.
(g) Provision of school facilities at a faster rate.
(h) Changes in state and local financing to meet the demand for
necessary facilities.
(i) Urban vulnerability requirements.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A0027006EW
NATIINAL CAPITAL REMONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
7013 Interior Building
Washington 25? D. C.
CIRCULAR MEMORANDUP NO. 43
April 1, 1955
TOs reebers? Alternates, and Staff
FRnifs Paul Collett, Director
SUBJECT, Report on relocation mf the cra in vicinity of Liaglais Vao
?he regional Council at a special molting onlareh 11, 2955,
received an ova presentation from representatives of the Central
Intelligence Agency requesting that the Council submit a Import and
recmassendatiome relating to this site,
A threepmen coseittee? consisting of Colonel Lane
Chairman* Mr. Mehrley, and Mr. Valls? 'ea appointed to stZsdy the
matter atter consultation with the Fairfax Planning Conedssi-n
and report to the Council.
On March 21, 1955, the Fairfax County Planning Commission
adapted the following resolutions
RES1LVED? That the Central Intelligence Agency be
invited to locate in Fairfax County., provided that the
Federal Government furnish funds for necessary public
facilities, such as water, sewers, and roads,
AND BE IT FURTHER REVLVED,'That it is the suggeop
tion of this Coveissimn t- the National Capital Regional
Planning Commission that the Council rec,mmend that the
Central Intelligence Agency and other federal agencies in-
volved in this project lark in cooperati-n mith this comp
missinn in the planning of necessary public facilities.
Since the Fairfaxres-autiondid not refer t- a specific site, the
attadhedropnrt sets forth the data which have been collected relating
to the planning considerations*
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08 IA- -04718A0027 0010-8
q."
5TATISTICAL AREA
EXISTING LAND USE DATA- PLATE. I.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Site at, Lengy.y., Virginia
It is the intana of this repert ao set forth as nearly as can be
determined In the ti.)03 given the existing planning concepts related
tn this area, as mel% as effect of the impact of the prmposed instant-
tion. This information wee compiled filth the assistance of the Fairfax
Plannine staff, the arlington Planning start, the Northern Virginia
Regional Planning; ae4 Econoric Development Conmissien, widths regional
proposals of the Comprehensive Plan of the National Capital developed
by the National CaPital Planning Co test-n.
ExutiR; c5tAdWops
Land "...mad *claim.
The present land we and *ming practice, being fallopsd in this
area call for a low density development, vith lot areas generally recct-
mended t- be at least one acre. This is supported by the existing land
use mhich is predominantly the lest remaining onmell estate*type of lied
use this close in, 'within the metropolitan area, The ezieting zoning
reflects this low density as vell as a minima manwat of commercial
development in the area?
The recently conpletediAaster Plan for Fairfax County, *Loh tue
not been officially adopted, shows the following 1953 land use for
a sector in the Langley area, uhich exemplifies existing conditions
in the area.
This area is bounded by the Potomac River, Arlington County, Fells
Church, Washington and Old Dorinion Railways Oallaws Road, Chain Bride*
Road, Route 694a Rants 193, and Dead Run. The area contains 11,619
acres or about 4.5 pereent of the county area, and 134,257 personatetich
is ab-ut 10 percent of the caenty populetinn. This is a density of
L,lif. warns per acre. The land use is as follow* (see Pies 1)1
Acres. Percent
Reeidence 16614.3 14.32
Bueinesa 7.5 0.07
Commercial 29.3 0.25
Industry 16.0 0.14
Public park 25.6 0.22
Public building 33.0 0.29
Setri.mpublic building 82.5 0.71
Agriculture 2417.7 20.81
Estates 1479.3 12.73
Open land 740.2 6.37
Roads 53702 4.62
Vacant lend 173504 14094
Wooded land 2S 0j 2441
.u7610:153 wo.00
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Utilitiee.
The proposals for Nture water and .sewer service in this area
were also dominant reasons for prescribing low density development.
There is a sewage treatment plant being designed ter the area at the
preaent ties. Which is proposed to serve the area at the rate of approxi-
mately 10 preens to the acre. This is being finalced by a revenue
bond issue to be bent by stages. The first stage of construction is
proposed to. serve 7000 persons with an ultimate 20,000 in the meet 10
yews,
The preeent ureter service is being provided partly through ground
eater facilities ard partly by service from the District of Columbia.
The lines from the District of Coluthia areas tha river at the Chain
Eridge and are under the jurisdictien of Arlington County.
Flie&Ay.....*,etijridgee end transit.
The HigtannePlan presently proposes the George 17aehingten Memorial
Parkway
and the Fairfax Die. 1 Expressway as the major radials serving .
this areas, reth the outee belt and inteemediate belt expresavgy eoTzng the major circumferential distributors. None of these feeilitiese
ere in exintence or ender construction. The righteofewey is in the
process of being acapired for the GeorgolCesbingeen Uomorial Parkway
to tha Arlingtofterarfae line from Spout Run? shich is the present
tereainua of the existing parkway. These fatilitiee are propesed to be
oonstrected to the hilkeet standards.
Virginia Routes 123, 193, and 309 are proposed to be major Mee-
rays
in this area by uperading existing standards. They are presently
narrow? winding rn&Aa with righteof-mye averaging out 40 feat.
None of these are propooed to be limited access facilities, The axeresze
ways and perkneys woulel have probable priority of omastruction.
aeain Bridge is the only existine bridge directly serving this
area. This is a.twoelano bridge with vary limited capaoity because of
the Aimee-At -and .6esign ct the access roads at either bridge head.
Cabin John Bridge is propoeed-ao a pert of the outer bele,
Present transit service is very poor in this area ee the densieee
le not great enough to support a high type of mass transit service.
Ichool. peek anti censereation.
The immediate school needs are not evident under existing &aisle
ties, Storm drainage endemic Cansideratien are Copendent on ope
llood plane and conservation practices in the stream valleys, uhich
ere more easily adapted toee low density development. This practice
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/3,1, : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
3
is reglected in the plans of tho reerstate CrImissina the. #otoinac
qiwur EA913/11 Te. the Rational Capital Plarnlng Conviss.!on thich pc,:.cto5
that ths Poula,,ac River novth of ray Eriev1xlarmarved for beltil,4ng
other' eudn'Temeat.ioaal no9.
Ad _!_cu of, . 11?Esposed FaAltt
mgm.,
(.;Mt the Arse ta the Vicinit7o LaEglev, Vnia
Mar...eVZIN ?????????,.+1.4..tg rm.
tisretblily agreed that it i* ro,=4:4",7,1 ,Taat4 thth instalteticat
t4e Langley areal provided it:ha tIttl ia',91--,:?Av4i 4 !lget QV clearly tff/ti.01."
stood and 'the AtiOlCiel Oblige/1.MS GEV cm.,:Msfas`kri.17,, ?'.f.'eneted. Yn
to alSrive maRaniable faatom relatilng tha 1.,..-vtotf a facility 1,4.--?;,341
pliwily p%mining cdnuidemtionso V.;t wry r- make a klUllilfa?
of basic&seem:A.1one. A meat zany of: V.,'"6-Z fFtM.'Floffeigast tlt!nt
folios rem, I-caperedby Couny 5,11nning staff :Cm .1.1-'emnt,'att
:to their, PlAr.nfing Cersrissiced tto Coim12.. aotteoLzittea. Tiyete
'uere 'based on ttql %lati of data boyripilei,A :":01:- the remttlg ce7:Tist1,1
'Kanter Ken fcr the cot' kr and from trin ce.cnomlo stuttou Ecthe
prepared fcv the bounty. The basic msuspWa to ke.ep in mind f..2
the kellosing dataJ3 thAt in figuring pvillaticroAh related ite,,
project the mtio of 1.h service vorkargt to 'each .;m.raar tne vts3d
which %lag, dweergirted IA, the Nov; Stud:Ise. AcIdustarints 11:07.3 111.01.31 tkiL5C)
IN: the tot1 pairaletion bried n the nvir-bae of Emilie* not
Lag the scene', In its xeselt lvcation xzid li'aing 21.1xfa.-I.
stivtimIsted :from the asemed total ok alitiatod 3:.31);slat tr kik:
resllt
of tlIm facIllty. It OpemsKt or tIpTaz,zel
agslt-57 avigorze mar live an FrArfzz Cumlz.r. Tho Hoyt f4;41re ofe
per Sms pLY: faliny V/L'rt
'itShr,uld also bo po,int0. mat Qat Vis ::)ato'6s, 7.z-:7c=11,:td. by the rl'i..etEM
staff as rale.:;ed to the Fairfar TYlt-Arinc, Czviurit;ston. ?WX10 'IS1714;ti
MIT Olt a sita in Fairfax COnatiy Isrfr, ;-31,,t7)cififtal,17 for th-9 Lealgley fete.
they vtonld apply t-Q as %-x:12,. az any otter site exotpt that
borgiitionof individ1 4tc t rneettd. Fairfa4; staff etz';.a
sill be nred with drxiblo asteris!tl.
Tb0 Atagke-11 C011rity piran!Zilg :73";:l.kft?
Reatonal Flaming Old Rconrird,o
pertinent information', -T,Thich Tin be nd.;:Teg
A
!dos
41,n Northern irenia
nre,gsi -n also eta,z:,11/1.
. TA the short- tiu.taLgven'to stuly this pmbliam:1.t has not ham possi-
bl to do a &nailed 'analysis of oo factf:7v3 so that th d17/.1
?be of nectrieltyrathor 'general.
Thwmajor impactlaltdr nelatiTo to the obeglemtl be wiele,..be the
its.afe vhich i1.4-51srsto,:141?,,x,011.te' twat roat
yt ion vlitl'a noecd myrt-rit to tlin tau hue. Maass ttwf
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
co 4
are drawn'.Up there is no assurance nf arny pnymente in lieu ef taxes, whit
'NOWA mearinthat neceasary capital improvementa would have to be adnustod tn,
the existing tax bese and bonding power of ths nounty vhieh would be
fleeted innlveryonela taxes. Careful stndy nnuld have to be nada tOlen
termins 44 effect of this imPact but it is evident, that it could haw n nn5at
4e4ct enn financial been ef the connty.
. Pip, g is juatified to a great extent Up= the fact that by develop,.
ing it onn sound economic base a stability is attninsd which is ref/acted
in the 1 ' davelopaent. Sudden revisionn to them beeic planning Omea
awn erten Iproperty values ann the very protection the idents feel that
they are gOtting throuiel lwignrange planning.
,
DaRlai?4;,
.
The Sirfax staff in app4inn their assured funt-rs have determined that
the locatinnl of this facility in the county tnuld bring A resultant total
populati*of 35000 by 19650 This .figure includea basic and servnee ennksr
and theiritamnlies end assume that by 1965 thnt 60 pereent of the employenn
of the agency Mould be living in the countY, MN= the 10 percent thich arn
assumed tOnbanpresently living in the county are eubtrecten a net popi1aticn
of 22?7004e assumed for 1965.*
n
Since the Fairlax staff did not sinnle -ut a opecd.fic site, the anon,
described 4n the existing land use secti,n (see Plate 1) can be anelyied '
to compare the possible impact -f this facility on the Langley area. Thnt
area, prellously described, now contains 1%257 in an area of 11,67.9. eag
ciii7
with 101k? anions per acre. Existing Anna assume a 1960 nopulatinn in
that semi _ a of appracimately 21,800Ainersons or 1.80 persons per acre.-
If the re ,tont population forecast by the Fairfan staff f-r the county
mere to bialpplied in this area even on the conewannitive basis' of 50 percent
of the tia l going into this area, a populatinn of approzirintely 224607, or
nearly dera le would be in this save arse by /5'65.
use d
Deteneinetinn of the impact of the proposed agency upon the lend une nnd
Boning preatiees would be dependent to a great extent upon the ability of thn
_local plaq4lng agency and the county,govnrninn body to-maintein rensonable
ennV01 lend development. Peat experience in similar circumstences inn
dicats'th this is demanding an atiost impossible task ofthese citizen
bodies in, wet>: the normal land speculatinn that fellows, as 1041 as the
normal nayntonday problenn-faning slut organizations.
,
The Sault/ant pppulatinn increase will neoessitate"complete revision of
the land11,1,0 ead zoning concepts now recommended in existing and proposed
plans for this area The existing land use statistics for ths'erea shorn on
47--rayfrewari
,1
Sstimoted PopulatirnP5stribn.Liot, rnti-nal Captt1 Rev,rr
VUkt
t kat
p v e o r Release-2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
7
fro
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
es, 5 co
Plate I indicate extremely low densities with a minimum of commercial uses.
There are practically no existing or proposed matiefamdlyemese
The impect of such a proposed installation meld require revieionoftee
detailed study, to allow a greater area for medium to low density, single"
family iota, posaibly some duplex and realteefeedly areas, end a proportionate
increase in eammercial and incluetrial land use. There wad be pressure cn
the planning and governing bodies to probably go beyond whet the)- might feel
is reasonable in view of assumed populaticn growth and capital improvement
coats,
Utilities,
The existing and proposed plans for the land use and coning in the
vicinity of Lengley were based on present and future public utility earvime
The existing low density concept with a high percentage of large acreages
with ground facilitiser both sewer and water have maintained low service
standards. The impact of the proposed installation upon these utilities
would be felt almost immediately',
Sewers. - At the present Ulna a sewage treatment plant has been authorised
by thiPeMr Centre,. Board in Richmond for the Pimmit eRun Valley. This plant
will be financed by bonds. The plant is proposed for stage construe'
tion over a 10eyeer peri-d. The first stage, which has been autherized?
will provide service for 7500 persons, At final coppletion the plant will
service 20,000 persons.
The Fairfax population estimate assumes that 22,700 persons would ree
sett from this installatien. /f the 50 percent figure is again applied to
this area, the first etage co ruction will immediately be over capacity.
In fact, the ultimate 10-year project would virtually be at practical
capacity. In view of this it would be necessary to provide a larger plant
at once, This would invalidate the existing bond is3114 and reviles upwarde of
a year or 30 to votea new project-, providing it woule carry, Doubt has also
been raised whether the State Water Control Beard would Approve a larger pleat
on this set*.
The NorthernVirginia Regional Planning and Economic Development Come
miesion reports that Mr. A. R. Pseesler? Executive Secretary of the rater
Control Board confirmed this by statine that a larger plant would have to
be located downstream near the confluence with the Potomac River, which is
however below the Little Falls intake. The U. Si, Corps of Engineers have
stated they will not allow 100 percent treated sewage to enter the Potomac
River above the prop-sad Little Falls Pumping Station. This might ultimately
mean a trunk line down to Arlington, Alexandria, or Blue Plains at censiderable
cost to serve future private development in areas above Little Falls.
Water. - Existing land use plans on both sides of the Potomac above
the Little Fells eater Intake reflect 10111' density development to protect
the long range water supply for the region,
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Present water service in the Langley area is provided by ground
eater facilities and from the Falls Church supply Which is received
from Arlingtcn County, who in turn purchase It trout the Washington
Aqueduct. This supply presently crosses the river at Chain Bridge.
Water supply vaauld be affected immediately by installation in the
Langley area, but would not be a problem after two or tree years as
both Arlington and Falls Church are working on plans for new lives
across the river. The initial impact could be quitleserious however,
as a7eington County purchases the supply from the Washington Aqueduct
and sells the strplus to kens Church and Fairfexo
litebreyaz_bri4LejLtArsi ,ransit
HIEIMUR 844 igAde0a. - The existing h4Mmay and bridge plans for
this area would not have to be revised. Heverll indications are
that most of the proposed projects Should be co.,letad iumediately if
the installation is to be adequately served. The agency has stated that
the George Washington Memorial Parkway should be completed and Virginia
Routes 123 and 193 should be improved to the site before the installetien
is completed,
The George Washington Memorial Parkway Is now completed to Spout
Run in Arlington County. Funds are available to purchase the remaining
rights-of-way to the Public Roads prepertye However, it dhould be
noted that in view of the publicity relatiri to this installation there
is serious doubt that the funds now available would be sufficient'becauee
of probable speculative raises in land values.
Route 123 is proposed to be eventually a four-lane divided highway
in place of the existing two-line facility on a 40-foot righteofeway.
A representative of the Virginia Department of Highways advised the
Northern Virginia Regional Planning and Economic Deva1opraent Commission
that this improvement is not scheduled to be merle for a number of years,
One source reports this to be within 10 years. The Highway Department
officials indicated that improvements in this area are set up on a
priority Imolai and that money cannot be diverted from other desperately
needed projects, such as Seven Corners and Bailoyln Crossroads,
Arlington County has eepressed concern as to ehether the presort
plans for both the parkway and Route 123 are.adevete to provide needed
capacity. They are both proposed to be fourelane facilities. Independ-
ent etudies by their planning staff have abom a poseible need for
lane facilities in both cases? particularly becatee both facilities joie
at Chain Bridge, ehich is a narrow two-lane bridge;, with poor aco7et at
both the Virginia and District of Columbia bridgehmsd.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
7
fl
The improtement of these facilities has heretofore been planned
by stage construction over a period of years. This installation would
require immediate construction at very considerable cost.
This installation voted also require the conetruction of a river
crossing et Cabin John concurrent with the Virginia section of the outer
belt, to at lewd Route 7, much sooner than existing plans now propose.
Transit. There has been very little need for concentrated transit
service in this area under existing plans, because of the existing low
density. The impact of the proposed installation would require an integrated
transit Vatic Mich would be basically dependent on the prevision of
adequate hiermey facilities in the area. This service would only C.
as the tributary population moved in to make it economical.
The Fairfax staff has estimated that the location of an installation
of the type proposed woUld mean an additional 4300 pupils in the county
by 190. This is based on the 22,700 increase in population. This would
require, under prescribed standards, five new elemmtary schools and one
new high school. This area has provided adequate school facilities
under existing:Plans because of the 'low &entity development which, of
()purse, required only minimum'putlic
talgtiJA-03241AM
Considerably mere park and recreational areas would be required
as a result of the proposed relocation. It is estimated that better then
tour times the existing area for parks and recreation would be necessary
based on present standards. This would require prompt action by the County
and the State of Virginia to begin acquiring land in the etraumvalleys
under the provisions of the Capper-Crampton Act.
The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, the National
Capital Planning Commissicn and the U. S. Carps of Engineers have recom-
mended that the Potomac River be preserved as a recreational area for
boating and picnicing from the Key Bridge north.
There has not been sufficient time in which to prepare detailed
cost estimates related to the required initial capital improvements.
It is quite ?beim* by the tact that at of the needs sheen have
heretofore been planned to be provided gradually on a priority basis,
that the immediate costs are going to be exceedingly high over a
relatively abort period of time. A, detailed cost estimate should to
carefully analysed as to the total involved and as to the amount each
governmental body - - County, State, and Federal - would have to
provide.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
? 8 ?
o son geemrelated to eztneim
The fact that it was necessary to prepare the preceding data as
quickly as possible made it difficult to prepare adeciente factual data
relating to existing outlying agencies. It would have been, very helpful
to have complete data comparing before and after conditions at the
Bureau of the 09DAMO at Suit land, the AraerNhp Service bel ce Glen Echo,
and the Nations]. Institutes of Health and Naval Hospital at Bethesda.
Each of these projects were developed without benefit of the
prescribed procedures now being followed related to the plaening agencies.
There have been great changes in eadh area pertstining to the land use
pattern, the population density, highway improve ants, and utility
requirements. Unfortunately, there is not sufficient data available
to relate the impact in terms of the immediate effect on the tax hoe
and the proportionate pa rite for facilities by the looal government
and the Federal Government.
Additiccal information should also be developed pertaining to
the building of the Pentagon in Virginia e The Federal &moment in
that case, through the Lanham Act, made certain payments to .Arlington
County for public facilities and, of course, constructed the mad
network, including the Shirley Mghway to the Arlington.Felrfaxline.
Conclueions and Recommendations
It is hoped that the preceding data, prepared jointly thrcugh the
efforts of the planning staff at Fairfax Ceurity0 Arlingtcp County,
Northern Virginia Regional Planning and BconomiceDevelopment Coandssion,
and the Regional Council, hati been helpful in setting forth the planning
considerations which should be studied befog* reaching a decision on this
problem. There was not sufficient time to present all of the information
desired. ,However, it would appear in this caie that any planning agency
would be negligent if it. did not state the remefications of euoh a
project related to the plahning considerations for the benefit of both
the Federal agency and the affected -jurisdictions.
The data in this report objeativelY represent the assumed impact
the proposed project would have upon the Langley area as nearly as it
can be determined. Analysis of this information indicates that the
initial impact in this area would be quite great and probably much.
greater than in other parts of the deentlewhere existing conditions
could be more readily adjusted.
As your Director, I would like to entail the folloting recom-
mendations, based on a stuAy of the feats presentedt.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 :.CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
- 9 -
The Council has been orally requested to submit a report an the
Langley site. The Fairfax Planning COOMIX#1011 action did net refer to
a specific site in the county.
(a)
I recommend that Careful; considered study be giVen to
the proposal to relocate the Central Intelligence Agency
at Langley; Virginia; on the basis that from the informa-
tion presented relating to the planning aspect it would
be seemingly impractical in view of the immediate =AMU
improvements needed within a two to tree-war period.
I certainly agree. that it would be possible to locate this
Installation in the Langley area if money is no object; however; ?
there have been no commitments made to indicate hoe all of the neoes
nary improvements would be financed.
(b) I recommend that the Council in its report on this matter
to the National Capital Planning Commission request them
to notify the proper federal agency oft)* need for
establishing criteria to be follemekin,terme of applica-
tion procedure; timing; proportionate _casts to be borne
by agencies involved; and bade data needed from the
agency applying.
It is evident that the Council and other agencies affected must
have more time to consider future projects of this type.
If there are to be more projects of.this type following existing
procedures, a "package unit" where all of the responsibilities are
clearly stated would be deeiratae even though this mould require new
legislation.
(c) I recOmnend that the Council offer its assistance to the
Central Intelligent* Agency in studying other sites;
should they so desire.
(d) I recmsend that the Regional Council reoommend in its
report to the National Capital Planning Commission that
the Central Intelligence Agency and other Federal agencies
involved in this project work with the local planning
commission in the planning of neeessary pUhlic facilities.
Paul C. Watt
Director
March 31; 1955
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A0027E810518310-8
COMMONWEALTH a? VIRCEENIA.
couNry OF FAIRFAX
FURFAIs 17IRGINIA
Offioe of
Flaming Commission. Novesber 23s 1955
?
Mr. Max Se Webrlys ChanSID
National Capital Regional Flaming Council
7013 Interior Building
Washington, DO CO
Be: Central Intelligente, Agency
Dear Mr. Websitys
The Fairfax County Mining Caouttaton discussed the
aubjeet setter of your letter of November 17 at its
meeting of November 210 1955.
have been direoted to notify you that this Omamission
at thia marling by majority vote passed a resolution
deelaring itself in freer of the Lawler site as the
iscation fler the Central Intelligence Agenciy?
RHStkl
oat Mr. Keith Prim)
?? Mr. C. CO Massey
Yours very truly,"
FAIRFAX corm PL4NWM0 COMMISSION .
Ey UT.
H F. warms rap
Director of Planning.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-047W44700-050016-8
03/INCITWFALTH OF VIRGINIA
CCUNPY OF FATRFAX
FAIRFAX vimmilk.
Office or Noted:4 28, 1955
Flaming Cosedssien
14.? Max Wehr2y4 Chairman
Rational Capital Regional Planning Council
7013 Interior Building
Washington, Do Co
Dear Sirs
We the uer
ndsign me
ed mbers of the Fairfax County Planning
Cainission. ham studied the report of Clarke and Rapuano
advooating the location of the new CIA headquarters on the
74905-aare Federal property at langley, and wish to sake
the following constentsc
11.) The statement is correct that the County of Fairfax has
smeared the CIA it will install adequate swage faellittes
to serve the Agency within a period of tiro years. The Counter
is map* able to fulfill this oonnittment from *coilede of
a recent $20-rei31ion sorer bond issue.
2) We hare confirmed the fact that the City et Falls Char*
has loaaritted itself to supplr an adequate water 'apply to
the sit*, and that it has both the facilities and the
financial ability to do se. At the presort tine Falls March
is haring a 36? supply an installed In the new little Falls
Dam. alnost adjacent to the proposed CIA site, and has alrea4r
paid the Army Engineers for such installation. This will be
a direst connection with Dalecerlia Reservoir, and is in addl.
tion to its present core action thereto through the Arlington
County mains on Chain Bridge.
3) The statement is correct that the Department of Aigtevers
of the State of Virginia has *omitted itself to improve
State Road No. 123 from its present 24eres to a divided
4.2ers highway from Langley fork to its crossing of the ine.
termion of the George Washington Memorial Parkwer
4) We urderstand that the Congress of the United States has
authorised $885C0s003 for the extension of the George Wash-
ington Manorial Parkway from its pm sent terminus at Spout
Ikano above Kcv Bridges to the Langley site if CIA lboates
there, and has actually appropriated the Initial $2,500?000
for this purpose?
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718MOMM52810-31955
Mr. Max Wehrle,*
National Capitol Regional. Planning (human
5) We have confirmed the fact that the Cearrty of Fairfax has
ocaridtted itself to the sue of 1010.0O0 as its one-iburth
share or the cost of acquiring rights-0Nya, ibr mid Partner
extension within this Camay, and that the Virginia Department
of Higtsmys baa eoemitted itself for its matehing share. Ws
eonsider the total of $4409000 for this purpose, inoludix?
nederal matching fords, to be ampis to acquire suoh rightsuct-
way from the Arlington line to the proposed site of the Cabin
John Bridge, near Dead Ran.
6) Your attention is called to the abatement contained in
the Clarke and Repueno report that these improverents will
adequately oar. for the anticipated traffic needs of CU
at the Langley site.
We wish to call your attention, however, to additioisil
traffic improvements which wear to be in prospeot, and
which will increase greatly the above service to the Lumley
el to
The Outer Belt Preswor? whitih is to Girdle the Dietriot of
Columbia, will arose the ? Potomac on Cabin John Bridge, within
a few thousand feet of the Langley site of CIL. Ms entire
Freeway has, within the past two months*, been tdcan into the
Interstate system of Ifittawrgya, making it =Meat to 60% parti-
eipating /Wend fumes. ? Under the Federal Highway Bill which
is expected to pane at the impending session of Congress, we
understard this Federal parbielpation will be inereased to
-9 0%,
In addition, we are informed that fuzed have already been apr
preprinted to extend and grade Canal Road fleas Chain Bridge
to the propoeed site or the Cabin John Bridge, this extension
to be a _pact of the' George Washington lizeorial Parkway on
the 14171and side of the Potomac.
Tao deft?) lanes are also to be added to Key Bridge, with
a northbound cannection there from to the ifeserisl Paricsay
at Roselyn. This will greatly aid traffic from northwest
Washington toward the Lanese, Tho *opposed Roosevelt
Island Bridge, also connecting with the Thaorial Parkway,
will be en additional Gamine fer Lengley.beund traffic.
In addition to the above existing, or lanediately impending,
highway facilities envying the Langley site, there is molar
disouseion the repleoement of the existing Cabin John street-
car traektsnd thatr replactesent by a highway to the Cabin
John Bridge cites which would also beecone a highlevel lane
. 2 .
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-0471waaapie
Ira Nay Wehr
National Capital Regional Planning Common
of the George Washington ihwee?lal Parkeey. In eannection
with this, there Is aleo under discussion a proposal to
double.deck Chain Bridge* the uppee de* to eomeet with
such Palaver lane.
I. have conferred with the proper offieloas of the CUM,
peek. & Patellae Telephone Compare, of Virginia, and or ths
Virginia E:Ileetric & Rower Oorepanyi and have been tad Iv
both trete they haw assared CIA of Melva* telephone end
electrie service at the Iengley site.
NE ARE TREREFORE CONVINCED ThAT03IIP1ETELT AISQUiTE MM.
WATER, TEITCPIOIE, ELECTRIC AND WIONIIAT FACITATIES ANZ ASOMMI
TO CIA IF IT LOCATES AT LANGLEY* AND TEAT EVEN ICU RIME
FACILITIES AM IN EA= PROSPECT.
03NVENIENCE 'T011/En01303E;
4
We stow with the Clarke sod Ripumne report's statement
that *In the eirautetancos we doubt whether more than ?
very fes of the CIA empliricee will find it necessary- to
(tango their please of reiridenee by' reale n of the location
of the Headquarter. at Langley; this site, we believe, le
ttelr most convenient in the largest numbara*
A study of the highway WV coltained In the ?Clarke.and Bipairso
reports in conjunotion' with the empleyee-distribution asps
can lea* no doubt of the desirabilitr of the Lacglay site
from the nespoint of the esplayees of CIA.
We consider the 'ability of CIA tep.loyees to retain their
present residenci.e. if the Agency is located at langley to
be of extreme importance. It Wass atentanoe that the 'ream
Inv:bleb they now live will not be deleged by their sudier
departures and that the lengley6NoLece area tin not be un.?
duly 'burdened by the sudden inflot of thauesods. of new
feeilieso The naturdi growth eapeoted In the Igaaglepliasin
area eels result of the completLen therein or the comminites
$2.million Sewage erste= nett year, and the great extension
of water maw by the DIV of F.Casatwoh ean.9,41,7 absorb
such CIA enployees as mey desire to move therei. -The *oat
completion of a new elementes7 and a high school at Noreen
and the passage of a 00-mil1ion sehcol bond"leene tor
additional school construction in Fairfax Can't, ozilloverber
8, assures adequate school facilities.
3...'.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
November 23. 1955
Mr. Nam rehrly ?
Natdonal Capital Begiomml Planning Cetta11.1
'EFFECT CH Ann
We ogres with the atatement in the Criarka and Name re..
pert that there "is ne reason for =neon on the pert of
those who predict that any governmental development is bound
to reeult, in large areas being given over to jemafl lots
with ameouportying anemerelal devaloyamite." and that If
the Fairfax County seeing authorities take their teat series
Quay ani.uphold the limning adieus (1kater Plan) as at fiPa.
sent planned. *then there need be no male for ooneeme."
The rimoontly^ *looted new Sapervisor hem tranewellle District,
7.sittich Ino/nAse the Iengley,1101em: area, gave tapaated masa.
masa tiering the eampaign that be fwered the adoption of
the Vaster Pion., and would meintain *blot sating In the ?
*Ma if sleeted.
In a *Tatter to the Bditor* published in a lopeal newspaper
on September 16 lest, he said. "As you know. I ea not op.
posed to the CIA Oa lometing here. The tere of Dreinisville
District pany root assured that I will hold the line$fer
etriet ant rigid penirg."
At a Labile meeting of the Wean Miaow Asseolation on
Monday. NovemberZ, he told those present that he had con- ? ?
retro with seat Off the other nintlreleeted members of the
Board at Sepervisors. and Gould asemre then that the Mister
Plea weetit be adopted, and that striae owning weld be.
mainteined.
? ?
We further agne?with the Meeke and liapesno Statement that
ineet of the Agency on the locality will be lessened' by the
feat that 69% of its empeete living north of the Potomae,
asuwell as on* of the 11% who live in Virginia, will math
the site via the Nescrial Parkway along the river ani will
thus have little 'oonteet with the area.
The further WA that the CIA bbildinge will odes* only a
main pivot Of the nadervalr.ewned 749.5-acre treat, mod that
they will be surrounded by a wide balt?of woodlend, and emit
eat be visible from outatide areas bordering the property
together with the statement of CIA Director Alen Dallas
that the Inatallation will contd.st of a number of college.?
type buildings, each surrounded by trees and each with its
individual paztong facilities not only gives further
as-
sureno. that the Agencor will not damage the area, but rather,
as the Clarke and Rapuano report' lay:. "cannot help but be-
came a distinct asset to the Ginty.".
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : Clt-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78,79471:A0010005050510-8
Ri tot . r itoti
Itr. Um* Wehrly
Natioral Capital Regional Planning Council
LOCAL ATT/TUDE.TowAnn CIA
Theugh there has been a =all and vociferous local group
of residents opposed to the looation of CIA at Langley,
it is. apparent to us that the great majority favor it.
/n the large area between langlay and the Arlington lines
between Pimmit Ran and the Potomao which our Planning
Director has designated as the only area djrpotly affected
by the move that residents ?ening over 80% of the lend
signed a statement that they did not object to CIA. (See
attaohed sap).
The opponents of CIA* over a period of mevera months* cite.
oulated a petition asking that the Uaster Plan be acbpted
in the area, that the bureau of rublio Roads land at Wexler
be used *I& 'park purported, and that no large Federal Agency
be located on that site. They finally presented to the
National Capital Planning Commission the petition contain.
ing approximately 700.,rames ehichr oonsidering that both
numbers of families and all children over 38 years signed it.
doubtless represented only come 400 fanilies at most. Those
favoring CIA, presented a petition with anle 2600 mess frore
the same area after only one month's solicitation. Both
candidates for Dramamine Superviaor in the recant election
signed this latter petition* and the wife of the meocessful
candidate helped oiroulette it.
wunam TRACT IEFEC1'8
We agree with the Clarke and Replan? ecnolusion that the
Winkler treats in an area on Shirley nigleary recently einem!
from Fairilex County by Alexandria, is unsaitable for the CU
headquarters.
The November 25 issue of a County iwwspaper quoted a life-
long resident of Alexandria and leading political figure*
as Stating the Winkler treat was "a swemp. I grazed cattle
on it for years and had to pit on hip boote before going
to get them". 4his confirms the Clarke and Replan, report
that the land is "too low in relation to the Shirley Niehway
and to the surrounding area* to suitable.
The architect for the proposed CIA headquartera added, at the
NCPC hearing on November 15, that it was located on a gravel
beds and ow large structure would require a floating found*.
tion.
OD 5 SID
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-047181Nag8Q5IN104,,,,
mos "77,
Nr? Nan Wein*
National. Capital Regional Planning Councd1-
Statisties of the Virginia Department of Highways confirm
the statement in the Clarke and Romano report that traffic
an the Shirley Memorial li2ghea7, which serves the Wirklar
tweet, "has row reached its (opacity, parties:dm* from a
point north of the Parafsirfax Interchange to the Poemso
lever cuassings ". Tour attention is oillad to the Stetoo
aunt In the report that "even after it is widened* SS
lanes as far south as King Street, it will still be
quite to acemaandate the concentrated peak lead
result from thermore than 3300 automobile* of tie
quarters staff during the moirdng and evening hosire.*
We wish, however. to (ALI attention to further tkaandt
Shirley hig)rasy ;hit% have not heretofore .been oonatelempli?
A vast development of now hones Is now urderesy at "Ow
field, not far youth of the Winideor tract, and Raw soft
such demlopmwits are now underway ar contemplated. Over
2000 homes have been built during the past year, and mere
than 3000 more are In the eonetzuotion or It=
This will add. tremendously. to. the fRiirleer ?
Alpo the fact should not be lest sight of that a Urge
Federal adrport is being contemplated at Durkee trent,: fir
which would tee the Shirley Sighwer beyond the Winitiar
Vest. Though this project iirbeing strongly protieted
by low& residents, the Ockernieent has ally* amgeted
over 1000 some of the proposed 4000.aore sits, IONA Metter
is a strong likelihood that the airport will weentseingr
become a reality. if so, the airport traffic, ad* to
that catching, Plum additional from the thOtianle hew
ender construction or contatiplated, would mak. the
Meow a nigtitmare if .914 tretrio !ere added. to it.
We iSitither feel that the. diffieneliics.ithichImuld'he OWL.
o,unteredby .the '69% of CIA eiego3reett living northlit
Patellae in reaching the Winkler tract, vould abortkr see,
gait in a 4rgti 'percentage of 'time being tOreed toitsivO
to the ? area, thus greatly ovineburderling ?the ' achoOle- set "
other public facilities; as will a's *Owing the areal 110a
wit th they mod. ' ?
' t? ? ,
,? !-1,6?,/?.
, ;-
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 ':.CIA-RDP78_04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
November 28, 1955
Ltro Mar Wehr
National Cspital Regional Flaming Council
In view of the, above analyete, we agree whOeheartadily
with the C3arice and %piano conolneion that "the Ate at
lengley in, in our opinion, the beat posal.We site we
Inow to be available ?'which meets the eetab3.ished criteria
We unimkeitatingly reocemmerid it."
Vary truly 'ware,
let %WI_ Moe
-
tolth Malmo
34?*----2M"----B"Brrookfield,Vies.Cleirman
joigeo...arra Bak% Raker
jrnr
zagr......a
0. v. Oerper
Austin E Fb1
attnE.Eo
John W. !bast
lbo
Col,. Gilbert Thompeon
voeormacsoultwelli
Approved For Release 2001/08/31: CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
THEA4R_VM _NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND.i.cLANIUM COVISSicti
November 28, 1955
Mr. Max S. wehay, Chairman
National Capital Regional Planning Council
Room 701,
Interior Building
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear. lir. ehrly
Thank you very much tor your letter of November 17th requesting thie
Commission's opinion and recommendation on the Clarks and Rapuano report
recommending the Langley site for the Central Intelligence Agency.
After reviewing the consultants' report, it is the considered opinion of
this Commission that the reasoning leading to Cadr favoring the Langley site is
faulte,and incxeleplete. The unsuitability of the Langley site, in view of the
almost complete inadequacy of access roads, sewage and water supply, and bridge
crossings is glaringly apparent, and it has yet to be proved conclusively that
the Greenbelt site should be eliminated as a possible location fr'cm the time-
distance viewpoint. In view of the major highway and bridge improvemerts ehich
would be required if the Langley site were eventually agreed upon the coat of
the District of Columbia improvements connecting the Federal triangle with the
terminus of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway seems very minor indeed. It should
also be remembered that the District of Columbia improvements to the Baltimore-
Washington Parkway approaches would be of mutual benefit, not only to the CIA
but also other Federal and State agencies as well as the tax-paying public.
The Clarke and Rapuano report places great emphasis on two considerationes
eecurity and dignity of setting. We believe that the Maryland site mould fulfill
both of these requirements to the fullest degree and might, in fact, provide
greater security due to the size and relative isolation of the Greenbelt tract.
In conclusien,tm believe that very careful 4rther scrutiny of the CIA
choice at Langley should be made by the National Capital Regional Planning Coun-
cil in view of the above factors and that, if the Langley site should be ulti-
mately receteended, there be ihcluded in its recoamendation to the National
Capital Planning Commission an appropriation for adequate funds for the extension
of the George WaShington Memorial Parkway atone the Virginia shore to the Cabin
John bridge crossing as well as funds for the proposed Cabin John bridge itself.
. Sinpereiy yowls*
jei Carlton.S.. Pyles,
. Parltoe Ee Pelee .
ehairmanee
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A0027000RRE8n
"Home Town of George Washington and Robert E. Leen
CITY OF ALEICANDRIA
VIRGINIA
November 28, 1955
Mr. Max S. Wehrly? Chair:Ian
National Capital Regional Planning Council
Department of the Interior
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Mr. Wehrlys
This is in answer to yoar request that the legislative
end planning bodies of the City of Alexandria, Virginia, review a
"Report on the Proposed Location for a New Headquarters for the
Central Toiteliigence Agency." ,
In reviewing the report we were asked to note the effects
Its reocemendetione would have on the City of Alexandria and to g..es
particular attention to the accuracy of etatements of fact as they
mey affect the City df Alexandria.
The effects of the reoemsendations of the report would be
to locate the CIA Headquarters Building at Langley. This is olearly
spelled out on pa 16 of the report, where the coneultente for CIA,
stated, in speaking ofthe Alexandria site, "We ,eould not possibly rec?
ommend, this site for one of the Nation's most important enterprises
In these critical times in the history of the world." On page 17 they
further stated, "The fact remains that the site at leengley is, in our
opinion, the best possible site we know to be available which meets the
established criteria."
The City of Alexandria strongly disagrees with these reamerndations and statements. The CIA established the fbllowing criteria
based upon its experience since established by Congress in 1947:
1. It was determined that the new headquarters of the Agency
should he within a radius of ten miles and within 20
minutes by automobile from the Zero Milestone in the City
of Waehington?
26 It was determined that the size of the building and the
number of automobiles to be parked in its ienediate
vicinity wculd require an area of not lose than 100 acres.
It was determined that 2,300,000 sq.ft. of building floor
apace will be required and that it wilt he ramose* to
leer:1de apace to park approxitutely 4A000 es4ecetobilm sed
at 111110213 for filirparai and, egrtgati tomotivn
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Ur. Max S. %hay 2 November 28* 1955
4. It was stressed that the site should lend itself to ease
in oarrying out the security measures that are impera.tive.
5. It was emphasized .that the new Headquarters chould have
ease of .coeuaznication by road to the White House, to the
Pentagon* and to the offices of. the .Department of State.
In applying this criteria* the consultants for CIA narrowed
their considerations of the 27 sites dean to 2 sites.: the ore near
Langley* Virginia,and the other 'mown as the Winkler site* situated in
the City of iaexandria? Virginia* alorg the Shirley Highwey approximately
1 mile southwest of Seminary Road. In order to Properly evaluate the
two sites the conealtants establiehed additional criteria* as fbIlcares
1. Physical characteristics of the site.
2. The location of residences of staff members.
3. The ease with which the mstjority of employees may rem*
the site.
4. The impact of the C/A development on adjacent properties.
5. Adequacy of utilities.
6. Road network.
There is no deubt that the Alexandria site meets on of the
criteria outlined by the CIA. When We applied the criteria of the consultants
to theAlexandria site we found that the Alexandria lite far exceeds the
Langley
1. PHYSICAL cHARAOTERISITCS OF THE arm
The Langley site was described as varying in elevation from
185th 280 feet above mean sea level. The terrain le rolling and the
differences of elevation within the area may be utilised by the 'watt?
teats In the development of the site 86 as to take full fAvalltafge of
the slopes. The Alexandria site varies in elevation from 85 feet to 250
feet above mean sea level. Its terrain likewise is lolling and is
turrounded by a wide belt of forest land which would aid in proving
the desired security.
24 TIE =ATI ON OF RESIDENOTTS OF STAFF =MEM
The report stated that "One of the most important factors that
merits elver:daily carelhl consideration is the re lationehip between the
places of residence of the employees of the C.I.A. and the proposed head.
quarters site." ? . "We understand that 50% of all the employees are
married and that 25% of these married employees own their own hems." The
renter of employees has been oft quoted as 10,000. Fifty per cent of this
rim.= would indicate that 5,000 at oerolcerees are =tried and 25% of
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78104/18A002700050010-8
?
? ?
?
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
_
Mr, 114x S. Wehrly - 3 - november 28, 1955
M
thg,5,000 would indicate 2250 employees *ening their own homes* The
re ft suggests, therefbre, that 8,750 employees have rot yet fixed upon
a place of residence until the final headquartere location can be determined*
No gfornation was provided as to the location of the IDES ownerser ? Neeent
etu, es by Professor Lorin Thomplon of the University of Virginia disclosed
that t here is etill a large migraticn of Federal workers from within the
City of Washington, D. CO, to the al.burban districts of the Meitempolitfur
Are This trend is concurred in by the consultants, who state on page 13
Of t1eir report, "It is natural that certain employees, who may find this
new, tte inconvenient for them, may wish to move closer to, the site" ? 0 ?
The fore, the statement of the consultants that the location of residences
of ? members if "one of the rest important factors" does not have the
relative importatoe implied.
3* THE EASE WITH Taal THE MAJORITf OF EMPLOYS MAT REA* T NE SITE
Private aitomobiles were considered to be the not important
w
of ransportation an hence the enly one that was given particular attention
i
in ?4he reports Inadvertently, in this etude, the report failed to mention
the ,proposed Janes Point Bridges fbr which the sum of $(3060000.00 has already
been ,appropriatad by Congress for engineering plans ard studies. With this
bricks, the widening of Shirley Righweg, and the doe. gn of egress aid ingress
to ttle Alexandria site by a competent higheay engineer, we feel that, trafficwie, the Alexandria site will be far superior to the Langley site and with
virtenally no expenditure of Federal funds*
4.'THE IMPACT OF TIE CIA D Di *MIT ON =MEM PROPERTIES
The report infers that the impact of CIA Headquarters will rot be
de rite,. to the surrounding areas in Fairfax Coen*. **Wing that the
, , ,
pre t zoning of the adjacent properties at Lan glfay calls for low deneity,
real4entials, semi-estate, development, the statement of the consultants is
Inao rehensiI2,1e? The Alexandria site has been zoned for high density
denrest-
r
,t a aavelopmpt and con developmentroial since Annexation, and as early
as 4. 48 was seriously considered as the location for the Social Secarity
Agerily? Consequently, 'since that date, all utilities and road nate' have been
dOgned to accomodate a building or development the size of the CIA t1ead
quatere.
5% :ArtsqUACT OF UTILITIES
, .
1 i i _
, In reviewing the adequacy of utilities we must emollient the eon-
Sul te for their following factual and objective statements: .
WATER STILT
4183,021.4 Pitt
"Available and proposed
plias would appear to be mom
ample to meet the C.I.A. too
adjeifrinermtellfram89.1,
sup=
than
La 7 site
"Water for the Langley site 'TALI
be furnished by the City of Falls
t and 011urch" and would require a vpsolal c.
Q84egt 1A-RDP7845e0W0.Qateaggeo*,, raltr cc-f
le
,
ii
410i
ow.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
'Ma X Se Wehrly
alb's? facilittee are also rueted to meet the expected
needs 0 the year 2000o"
4eataqdria site
"0* studies indteated that the
Chesappake and Potomac Telephone Car,?
pany ist now oomplating a new exchange
buildin0 in the area of the Winkler
tracts*t
November 28 1-)55
&itiar.f.441/4.'
!There is w_eldstinsibUc
sewage dLaposal facility available
at the Langley site at thiv t
TELEPHONE
;
4.0lacam1114,...2a 24.2
"TM existing facilities in the
vioiritr of the Langtay site are of
a minor nature."
BIECTRIG, Lpfit AND POliER
,
,
The Virginia Electric and Power "Tho Langley ei?e:08 has ro existing
Company msd.ntains a 22 KV line across transmission lines in the itaneeiato
the WtZkl.er site with 1mb?stations vicinity."
lace at Shirley ? Puke Apartmenta
and Beilley 0 s Cro ssroads .
I,
6. ROAD NETWORKS
The report states that if monies in excesa of ;$50 million era
op e rit in the neighbarhood of the Langley site to improve vad then:, th
site wi7M., ld be airiest as good as the Shirley I-lig:limy site in Alszendris.
Federal., Government has been guaranteed by the City of Aiexmdria it pill
taw tof spend any morass tor any road net purposes. Again, 40 fe,33. that, a
compet'ent highway engineer can design aftquate mean 3 Of egrc es and inglaetZ
at ei*er site to prov1de for the moving of 4,000 vehieleso
Pu
We note that the report was prepared by "xneulting engineers ay.'
lands.. arohitects." This would explain the emphasis placed on terralx:
siopre. --Um studies. Wes, too, feel that the proximity of the Langicy :t
to th Potomac Fiver affords a choice lccationv but tirpract:Loal from a
ttiliaian viewpoint,,, The availability of existing nervices, Mal preaur
of the Holmes Run PaAw and the saving to the Fedeati Oovanment of 50 to
million dolUrs outweighs this aesthetic criteria to Meh an'extent
eliminate the Langley vita frori any consideration.
Approved For Release 2001/08/31: CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31: CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
11n, ilex
$0, Vishay
? .5 ? Neverier 231... 2955
We feel that a statement made by the architect for the CIA.
at a public hearlyag bef.ore the Joint Meeting ce.' the rational CTifal
Flaming Commi.esion and the National Capital Regional. Planting Council
concerning soil bearing capacitr at the Jklesandria alto should be
rebutted. Recently soil torings taken on the site discloced a strata of
elay-gravelo 17 to, 25 feat in depths thence a !trate of fractured rooks
4 to 5 feet in depths lying on solid ledge rock. It ahould be clear to any
architect or engineer that the Alexandria site offers excellent founde-
time for any large b-aildingt, If the "canpur-like" gro.tping Of entailer
buildings in carried outs then,; even were the statements made by the
architect oorrects there would be no problem at the Alexandria sits*
Wo again wish to than:: the CIA and its consultants in prerzring
an excellent oase for the Alexmadria Tract end can only reiterates
"M..exandria likes the CIAsAxendris wants the CIA."
Respectfallys
hi Ira F. Willard
kra F0 WilIard
City Matag6 r
For:
City Council of Alexandria, V irginta
and the
Alexandria City Planning Conunission
ITU/MCA:a
Approved For Release 2001/08/31: CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
4
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
Court Howe
Rockville, Maryland
November 25, 1955
Mr. Max S. Wehrly
Chairman
National Capital Regional Planning Council
7013 Interior Building
Washingtcn 25, D. C.
Dear Mr. Wehrlys
Thie Commission has reviewed the ',Report an the Proposed Location
fa: a New Headquarters for the Central Intelligence Agency" prepared by the
firm of Clarke and Rapuano, in accordance with the fourth paragraph of your
letter dated November 17, 1955.
The Upper'Neotgomery County Planning Commission feels very strongly
that Montgomery County and its residents have a vital interest in the Central
Intelligence Agency proposal to locate at Langley for the reasons enumerated
below, as well as for regional considerations which we hope will be dealt with
in the National Capital Regional Planning Council's composite report.
The Clarke-Rapuano Report places great stress on the construction of
the Cabin John Bridge and the George Washington 1&moria1 Parkway in Maryland
between Key Bridge and Great Falls. While great interest has been generated
within recent months in the necessity for constructing both facilities (for
reasons other than the suggested CIA site at Lang1ey)9 nothing has been done
to our knowledge to assure the construction of either facility at any speci-
fied future date.
Thirty-seven per cent of CIA ,s employees reside in the Northwest section
of the District of Columbia, and eleven per cent reside in the suburban area of
Montgomery County. Only the immediate construction of the Cabin Jeharidge and
the Washington Memorial Parkway mould make the langley site accessible to these
two sizable concentrations of the CIA employees.
My
ComMission would alio like to point enet that the completion of a
bridge at Cabin John presumes the ompletion of the Virginia portion of the belt
road around the District of Columbia, a presumpticn which is not, to our knowledge,
based woe seler.lemmdiate plans for implementationeen the part of either local,
state, or Federal jurisdictioppe
Montgalery County's interest extends beyond the apes particulars, however,
It ifeelso concerned with the important question of proteotingthe Potomac River
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
Wara,T
in the Metropolitan Area north of the District of Colvabia and the adjoining and
in Virginia and Maryland, so that the river, itself, can continue to serve as a
source of water supply and so that the river and the adjoining Lard in the two
states can continue to satisfy the Metropolitan Armats need for open space for
recreation. It is the Commission's cmclusion that the locative of CIA at Langley
would effect such a drastic change in the general character of that area as to
seriously affect the Potomac's utility for these purposes*
This Ccmmission can appreciate the difficulty thich attends the selection
of a site which will serve CIA's miesion best. It respectfully suggests that,
from the point of view of this jurisdiction, the Langley site is not suitable;
and that services of the National Capital Regional Planning Council and the National=
Capital Park and Planning Commission should be extended to assist this. telenqy in
determining the best possible site, a site that will help advance the Regional
Council's program for orderly development in the Washington Metropolitan Area, as
well as fill the requirements far the Central Intelligence Agency's headquarters
building.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Ulysses Griffith, IV ht
Ulysses Griffith, IV
Chairman
Upper Montgomery county Planning Commission
This letter was transcribed in Mr. Griffithle
beence
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
7;
Approved For Release nolgampi. clk-grogw9ifin m00270005001 0-8
cauacri,, VfXNXA
tagrgt.i.?' OF
liovenber P6 1955
Planning Engineer
ifr. Mac S. Walleyeatk.ainsan
National Capital Regional Flaming Council
7013 Interior Building
Washington 25e D. C.
NE: CIA location at Langleye Virginia
Deer Sir:
Tour latter Of Nommber 275 1955 requesting revive cf end cos.
cents upon the statements of fact contaimd in :Severe. Matte
and Rapu npte report wee masa-fad too late to be brougUb beftee
the City Mitrinitig? Cegni eat on at its. November Z. meeting. Ase
hasevere the staterents of fast as they related to Falls Church
dealt with the water supray which is the resoonlibility of the
city Couno115 your 1ettcp was referred to the Council at its
meeting on NoleCiabcir
As the recolt of their study sad discussion the City 0ounaL1
unanirtously passed the attecbed ref:elutton.
Tours vet7 truly5
g. H. Grigg,* Jvo.
E., H. Grigge Jr.
? Plaarling Engineer
ENOsect
encl. 2
/ire ?John H. Graham
W. C E, Frolend
It'The Gate?awl; to the South"
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04/18A002700050010-8
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
IfiE50Y.WCN?
UTERUS, the City of Falls church has given aesaaunee that City
water mains r. k1 be extended to serve the proTmed Central
Intelligenoe Agency building mar Langloy, Virgirie,?, and
IYHEREAS, such assurances have been embodied in a "Reporb on the
Propoaed. Loctition for a New Headquaxtere fm- the Central In?
tellSgenee Amoy" prepared by glateca & RkOttEgtO ander date of
Oetaber 250 1955 cual
TIBERASD the National Capita Regional Pisan:1/1g Goonall has wind
the City Council to review said report "giving pirtioular
atteation to t couracy of statosantz of. foot es they miAy
affect your jurisdiction, nslatile to map? traffic, arteries,
the availability sod adcauao3r a water alioply? problems of
image disposal., and titing of and reepiaasibilitT for proposed
projects and related factors treated in the report"
NOVIDTHEREMIE? be it revolved by the Council of the Oity of Falls
Church, VirgAnial that the statements of fact oonoerning water
supAy inca9..d report aro oorreet ani the City dcee hereby re?
affirm its ability and desixe to tua/Ay water to the sits at
Langley and, fur there
BS' IT RESOLVED that the City Omani/ deniaoe to go on record as
favoring the construction of the propeocd Contra7, Intelligence
Agency building at the Langley sits'',
I b Rainy E. Wells, City Clark, de hereby e-ertify that the
above is a true and corroot copy of a resolution adopted by
the City Council of the City of Fells Chareh, Vi:?ginia, at
a regular meeting held on the 28th day of Novembefr, 1955.
In vritress-whereof, I hereunto set my hand and a:Tix the
seal of the said city this 29th dey- of November, 3.95.
1.1,r,?,riarry
113
Approved For Release 2001/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
13..28.55
APPENDXX "
Approved For Release 21J01/08/31 : CIA-RDP78-04718A002700050010-8
LOUDOUN COUNTY PLANICNG COMMiSS1ON
County Office Building
Leesburg, Virginia
December 1, 1955
Mr. MAX.S Weltrly, Chairman
Natienel Capq:al Regional Inannimg Council
Interior Builling
Waulninn, D. C
Dear Mr? Wehrlye
at is regretted that it has not been practicable to carry
out tie zequeet made in your letter of November 17, 4955,
To d2 eo would have rettefeed, within 10 dam to call special
meoOnso of the Board of Supervisors of Leudoun County and
of thee 7-leeresing Commission, involving a total of eighteen
peep ie o stuiy Use eeport ii quention, of zeillich only one
copy apparently as
It le permonal opinion!. however, that if these bodiee
had me' as 3tagcasted in the fourth paragraph of your letter,
no it-wet-taut comment would have been forthcoming because
the froject a:; Lartg/ey would seem to haee- relatively little
effect upon the !Major traffic arteries!, the water supply a d
sewage probleme of Loudoen County:,
have conferred with a majority of or execueve com-
mittee