REPORT ON THE PROPOSED LOCATION FOR A NEW HEADQUARTERS FOR THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 162
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 7, 2005
• Sequence Number: 44
• Publication Date: October 25, 1955
• Content Type: REPORT

Approyed For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
REPORT ON THE PROPOSED LOCATION
FOR A NEW HEADQUARTERS FOR THE
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
THE OFFICE OF
GILMORE D. CLARKE - MICHAEL RAPUANO
1,15 EAST 32nd STREET
NEW YORK 16
[HSTITC- SIN
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
GILMORE D. CLARKE
MICHAEL RAPUANO
RALPH L. MAC DONALD
WILLIAM S. BOICE
M. BETTY SPROUT
MALCOLM KIRKPATRICK
HANNES E. KAINO
RICHARD C. MURDOCK
JENNINGS E. EKEBLAD
VINCENT C. CERASI
JOSEPH F. BISIGNANO
JAMES SAYERS
DAVID J O'BRIEN
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LESLIE G. HOLLERAN
CHARLES MAC DONALD
GILMORE D. CLARKE ? MICHAEL RAPUANO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
145 EAST 32 t:1c, STREET ? NEW YORK 16 ? N ? Y?
MURRAY HILL 3-6152
REPORT ON THE PROPOSED LOCATION
FOR A NEW HEADQUARTERS FOR THE
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
October 25, 1955
In accordance with a request from the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, we have prepared this report, with recommendations, as a
guide to aid the Agency in determining upon a suitable site for a new headquarters
building.
We are impressed with the importance of this assignment, inasmuch as
we realize that the Central Intelligence Agency is one of the most potent factors in
the struggle for peace among the free nations of the world. It is our understanding
that it is this Nation's most important fact-gathering organization. In these circum-
stances, we believe that a new site should provide a dignified setting for the
building or buildings and that it should be set apart from the buildings of other
public agencies in order that the imperative security measures may obtain with
the least effort and expense.
HISTORY OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
In order to help us better to understand the problem, we obtained a
brief history of the C.I.A. which was prepared by a member of its staff; we
incorporate it herewith in this report.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIAIRDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
"The Central Intelligence Agency was the outgrowth of the
intelligence experience of World War II and particularly the
congressional investigation into the surprise attack at Pearl
Harbor. The aim was to concentrate national intelligence
responsibility in one place. No such function existed in
Government before World War II. Its formal beginning was
an executive order of January 22, 1946, creating the Central
Intelligence Group. After a period of consideration by the
Congress, the Central Intelligence Agency was established
by Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947.
The statements of functions in the Executive Order and the
statute are substantially the same, but under the statute
the former Group became an independent Executive Agency
of the Administrative Branch of the Government. Congress
stated that, for the purpose of coordinating the intelligence
activities of the several Government departments and
agencies in the interest of national security, it shall be the
duty of the Agency, under the direction of the National
Security Council, to advise and make recommendations to
the National Security Council on intelligence activities
relating to national security; to correlate and evaluate
intelligence relating to national security, and to provide
for its appropriate dissemination; to perform additional
services of common concern to the intelligence agencies;
and such other functions and duties related to intelligence
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIAADP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
as the National Security Council may direct. The Agency
is prohibited from any law-enforcement, police, or
internal-security functions, and the departmental
intelligence agencies are continued by statute in their
functions. However, the Director of Central Intelligence
is responsible for protecting intelligence sources and
methods from unauthorized disclosure.
The Agency has now evolved from a small coordinating
group into its full stature in the complex field of foreign
intelligence. In so doing, it has become a most unusual
and complicated organization. Its end products are national
intelligence estimates to assist the President and his top-
policy planners in making their decisions for the future of
the country. Such estimates must be based on the most
complete and most up-to-date information available. Any
subject, location, or person may be the subject of an
estimate and many are involved in most estimates. The
mechanical collection, handling, indexing, dissemination,
and analysis of the vast amount of available information
before an evaluation can start is a formidable task and
requires many specialists and special equipment. The
evaluation process brings to bear the best informed and
most expert knowledge in the Government on the problems
under consideration. This is again formidable-a process
of coordination requiring the interrelation of all govern-
mental intelligence facilities. All of this work is performed
3
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
behind a tight screen of security, which additionally
complicates the problems of coordination and
communications. Elaborate compartmentation is
necessary both for functions and for individuals to a
degree far greater than in any other activity, public or
private, and yet this compartmentation must not interfere
with the free and rapid flow of information to those who
have a need for it. Many subjects cannot be discussed
on the telephone so that coordinating units must be within
convenient distance. Documents may not be left unattended
and must be escorted in transit. This requires unusual
amounts of vault and safe space and secure means of
documentary transmission both mechanical and by courier.
Physical security of the entire site and of each component
within the site must provide assurance against unauthorized
entry.
The Central Intelligence Agency has a heavy responsibility
to the national defense and security, and the Director of
Central Intelligence bears the final responsibility for the
national intelligence mission. To meet this involves a
complex organization in which the primary need is, of course,
able, imaginative personnel. But, the people can work only
as efficiently as their surroundings will permit and unnecessary
delay in physical procebsing may have serious results; inability
to coordinate in a timely manner may result in an error; a
security compromise may have grave consequences.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : Cl4k-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Consequently, the planning for and design of housing
for this Agency present problems that would not be
encountered in any other building, public or private".
CRITERIA
Prior to the preparation of any study related to the selection of a
site, the C.I.A. established the following criteria based upon its experience
since the establishment by Congress in 1947.
1. It was determined that the new headquarters of the Agency
should be within a radius of ten miles and within 20 minutes
by automobile from the Zero Milestone in the City of
Washington.
2. It was determined that the size of the building and the
number of automobiles to be parked in its immediate
vicinity would require an area of not less than 100 acres.
3. It was determined that 2,300,000 sq. ft. of building floor
space will be required and that it will be necessary to
provide space to park approximately
uto:mobiles
and adequate means for ingress and egress for
automotive traffic.
4. It was stressed that the site should lend itself to ease
in carrying out the security measures that are imperative.
5. It was emphasized that the new Headquarters should have
ease of communication by road to the White House, to the
Pentagon, and to the offices of the Department of State.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
SEVERAL SITES UNDER CONSIDERATION
Prior to the time that this office was requested to prepare a report
the Agency, through members of its staff and with the aid of the members of
the staffs of certain other governmental agencies, reviewed many sites in the
District of Columbia and its environs, both within and without the area having a
10 mile radius from the Zero Milestone. The number of sites under consideration
was narrowed to six and subsequently to two. Nevertheless, we inspected the six
sites and certain others that, in our judgment, were worthy of consideration.
Either one or both members of this firm visited the sites which even remotely met
the established criteria and subsequently we discussed with members of the staff
of the Agency the advantages and the disadvantages of each site. (See Map #1)
On Wednesday, September 21, we conducted a hearing at the Head-
quarters of the Agency at which time we listened to the proponents of four of the
sites which received the most serious consideration. The proponents of each one
of these sites were cooperative in giving us data in the form of maps and reports
in order that we might be informed concerning the problems of each one of these
areas.
As a result of our studies, we also narrowed our considerations down
to two sites; the one near Langley, Virginia and the other, known as the Winkler
site, situated in the City of Alexandria along the Shirley Highway approximately
one mile southwest of Seminary Road. Both of these sites were inspected in the
field on several occasions and problems related to traffic, to water supply, to
sanitary sewers and, more particularly, to the physical character of the sites
themselves, were given the most careful study. We discussed the problems
related to the development of these two sites with a member, or members, of
the staffs of the C.I.A. and the National Capital Planning Commission and with
the Chairman of the National Capital Regional Planning Council.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-gDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
LOCATION OF RESIDENCES OF STAFF MEMBERS
One of the most important factors that merits especially careful
consideration is the relationship between the places of residence of the employees
of the C.I.A. and the proposed headquarters site. We are reliably informed that
the annual rate of turn-over of employees of the C.I.A. is somewhat less than
half the rate for other governmental agencies. We understand that 50% of all the
employees are married and that 25% of these married employees own their own
homes. The members of the staff have more or less dedicated themselves to
service with the C.I.A. until retirement even though they are not under the Civil
Service regulations. Since this is a highly specialized area of endeavor, the
staff members are especially well qualified and, in most cases, highly trained
for service with this Agency. In the circumstances, the ease with which the
majority may reach the headquarters site is an important factor governing its
selection.
We find that the places of residence (See Map #2) of both staff and
clerical employees are distributed at the present time as follows: In the
District of Columbia - Northwest, 37%; Northeast, 5%; Southeast, 7%;
Southwest, 1%; for a total of 50% of the employees. In the State of Virginia -
Arlington County, 15%; Fairfax County, 8%; City of Alexandria, 8%; Prince
William County, ? 04%;
Loudown County, .02%; for a total of 31.6% of the
employees. In the State of Maryland - Montgomery County, 11%; Prince
George County, 7%; City of Baltimore, .3%; Arundel County, .1%; for a
total of 18.4% of the employees.
Based upon these data, we determined that it is considerably more
convenient for the employees of the C. LA. to reach the Langley site, following
the construction of the highway, parkway, and related improvements, including
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA7RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
water supply and sewage disposal, that are essential before this site can be
utilized, than it would be for them to reach the Winkler or, in fact, any other
site under consideration. In the case of the Winkler site, for example, a
majority of the employees living in the District of Columbia would be forced to
pass through the Pentagon network at the busiest hours of the day, both morning
and evening, together with the traffic going to and departing from the Pentagon.
The Shirley Memorial Highway has now more than reached its capacity particularly
from a point north of the Parkfairfax Interchange to the Potomac River crossings
and, even after it is widened to six lanes as far south as King Street, it will still
be inadequate to accommodate the concentrated peak load that would result from
the more than
utomobiles of the C. I. A. Headquarters staff during the
morning and evening hours.
DESCRIPTION OF THE LANGLEY SITE
The Langley site is situated in Fairfax County and consists of 140 acres
of a 749.5 acre tract owned by the Federal Government. The center of this large
tract of land is approximately 7-1/2 miles, as the crow flies, from the Zero
Milestone. The westerly boundary is along Turkey Run; the northerly and easterly
boundary is the Potomac River and borders private lands from the River to the
Leesburg Road, which forms the southerly boundary. The 167.5 acres of this
tract are under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Service and extend along the
wooded banks of the Potomac River extending back from the River a distance of
more than 1,000', an area that will accommodate comfortably the extension of the
George Washington Memorial Parkway. The remainder of the site, comprising
582 acres, is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Public Roads. This agency
has developed a small part of the center of the site as a research laboratory.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : Clk-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
The Chief of the Bureau has expressed a willingness to relinquish the use of
140 acres of the tract, now under the Bureau's jurisdiction, for the development
of the C.I.A. Headquarters.
If the C.I.A. Headquarters should be situated on this site, it will
occupy part of a Government Reservation of 749.5 acres. Any development for
the C.I.A. within this site will be such that a wide belt of forest land will be left
around the periphery in a manner aiding to provide the desired security. It is
safe to assume that the proposed C.I.A. 140 acre tract, within this larger
governmental property, will be enclosed with a security fence.
The site varies in elevation from 185' to 280' above mean sea level,
and is 150 or more feet above the floor of the Potomac River. The terrain is
rolling and the differences in elevation within the area may be utilized by the
architects in the development of the site so as to take full advantage of the slopes.
MEANS OF ACCESS TO THE LANGLEY SITE
The principal access to the site from the District of Columbia is now
via Chain Bridge and Virginia Highway, Route 123; this artery is now inadequate.
It will be necessary, as contemplated in Public Law 161, 84th Congress, (Chapter
368 - 1st Session - HR 6829) to extend the George Washington Memorial Parkway
from its present terminus at Spout Run, approximately 3/4 of a mile west of the
Key Bridge, to the Langley site. It is understood that preliminary plans for this
dual parkway, providing for a total of four lanes (two in each direction) are in the
process of study. Monies have been made available to start the improvement of
Virginia Highway, Route 123. This route should be developed ultimately as a
separated six-lane artery between its intersection with Virginia Highway, Route
193 and Chain Bridge. Chain Bridge should be widened to provide for six lanes
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : Clfk-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
with a suitable connection to the proposed new dual parkway along the abandoned
Baltimore and Ohio Canal on the east side of the Potomac River in the State of
Maryland. It is further recommended, for immediate improvement, that
additional lanes be added on Canal Road at least from Weaver Place to Chain
Bridge and that Weaver Place be improved at least from Canal Road to MacArthur
Boulevard.
The Langley site is situated just east of the crossing of the Potomac
of the proposed bridge near Cabin John that will become an element in the Outer
Loop Freeway around the Washington Metropolitan District in Montgomery and
Prince George Counties in the State of Maryland, connecting with a second crossing
of the Potomac via the proposed Jones Point Bridge immediately south of the City
of Alexandria at Hunting Creek.
When this Outer Loop Freeway, a part of the Interstate System of
Highways, is completed the Langley site will be situated close to the Virginia
bridge-head of the Cabin John Bridge crossing and hence make the site even more
readily accessible from all points in the States of Maryland and Virginia as well
as from the District of Columbia. Until such time as the Outer Loop is constructed,
the four-lane George Washington Parkway, reaching up to the site along the west
bank of the Potomac, will prove to be adequate as a means of access to and egress
from the Langley site, inasmuch as it will serve the C.I.A. Headquarters, almost
exclusively, north of Spout Run. When the Outer Loop is constructed, it will be
necessary, due to the additional traffic that will be generated, to build an additional
traffic lane on the northbound drive between the Langley site and the proposed
Cabin John Bridge, and an additional traffic lane on the southbound drive between
the site and Chain Bridge, in order adequately to move the automobiles off of the
site in two directions, via an appropriate grade crossing elimination structure over
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-MP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
or under the parkway. With the initial construction of the parkway, the two sections
of the project that we have designated for an ultimate width of three lanes, should
be graded to accommodate three lanes; only two need be constructed until such
time as the Cabin John Bridge is built.
The proposed parkway along the old Baltimore and Ohio Canal in
Maryland (now under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service), that will connect
with the District of Columbia highway and freeway network extending southerly from
the proposed outer loop freeway at the crossing of the Potomac near Cabin John,
will afford an additional artery of communication between the Langley site and the
center of the National Capital and thus provide the site with an additional arterial
way to the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department.
In Virginia it will become necessary, ultimately, to improve Route 123
that leads directly from the Langley site, at its junction with the Leesburg Road
(Route 193), to and through McLean, Lewinsville and Tysons Corner, where it
crosses the Leesburg Pike (Route 7).
A related improvement that will serve as an added measure of
assistance in automotive travel, for those going between the Langley site and the
District of Columbia, will be the proposed widening of the Francis Scott Key
Bridge from four to six lanes (3 in each direction) and the proposed connections
between this bridge and the George Washington Memorial Parkway. These
improvements will measurably help those who may travel between the center of
the Capital City and Langley.
Appendix "A", with a map, attached to this report, sets forth in more
detail the pertinent factors and requirements related to arterial matters.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : Cpik-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LANGLEY SITE
Now that the Bureau of Public Roads has indicated its willingness to
release to the C.I.A. 140 acres of land out of the tract under its jurisdiction at
Langley, the coverage of structures on this 140 acre tract will be exceedingly
light and negligible in relation to the total government reservation of 749.5 acres.
If the structure is situated in or near the center of this 140 acre parcel of 'land,
it is fair to state that it may not be visible in the summer months from outside
areas bordering the property. Any logical layout of the site would aim to maintain
a wide belt of woodland on the periphery. Automobile parking areas will, of course,
take up approximately 25 acres of land, but the arrangement may be devised so as
to keep areas of woodland between areas graded and paved for car parking. The
fact that there is more land available here at Langley than was at first anticipated
makes this site even more favorable than it was heretofore when but 100 acres
were to be released to the C.I.A. by the Bureau of Public Roads.
IMPACT OF C.I.A. DEVELOPMENT ON FAIRFAX COUNTY
The impact of this proposed C.I.A. development of the Langley site
upon the immediately surrounding areas in Fairfax County will no doubt be felt,
but this should result in a minimum of detrimental effect by reason of the fact
that the site for the C.I.A. Headquarters (a) borders upon a strip of public park
land which extends to the Potomac River on the north and partly on the east sides;
(b) is insulated on the west side by wooded areas of public lands under the juris-
diction of the Bureau of Public Roads; (c) will be insulated by a wide strip of
forest land on the south side along the Leesburg Road. An additional factor that
will lessen the impact of this proposed development upon the immediate surrounding
areas of Fairfax County is the fact that the largest number of employees (over
68 percent) will enter the property via the George Washington Memorial Parkway
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CINTRDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
to be situated on park lands north of the proposed C.I.A. Headquarters generally
along the Potomac River. Approximately 31 percent of the employees at present
live in Virginia and some of these will also use the parkway in going to and
returning from work. In the circumstances, we doubt whether more than a very
few of the C. LA. employees will find it necessary to change their places of
residence by reason of the location of the Headquarters at Langley; this site, we
believe, is the most convenient to the largest number.
It is natural that certain employees, who may find this -new site
inconvenient for them, may wish to move closer to the site, but that is no reason
for concern on the part of those who predict that any governmental development is
bound to result in large areas being given over to small lots with the accompanying
commercial developments.
It has been brought out by those who oppose the Langley site for the
C.I.A. Headquarters that the impact of this proposed development will be detri-
mental to the surrounding areas in Fairfax County. By that they infer that this
insulated development will result in (a) a substantially denser population for an
unknown distance from the site, and (b) additional commercially zoned areas
causing a generally undesirable environment that does not now obtain and that is
not possible under the proposed scheme for zoning that the officials of Fairfax
County have caused to be made to ,serve as a guide in the future development of
the County. The County officials have completed a comprehensive plan for
development to include, in addition to zoning, the layout for new or improved
arteries of travel, parks, schools, public utilities and etc.
Mr. Dodd McHugh, planning consultant for Fairfax County, has
anticipated a rate of growth which is in excess of any possible increase that may
be attributed to the C. I. A. Headquarters development. In any event, the ultimate
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA3RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
improvement of existing roads, the construction of new roads and parkways, the
construction of sanitary and storm water sewers and the installation of water mains,
will tend to increase the population in Fairfax County whether or not the C. LA.
Headquarters is situated in the County. If the Zoning Board of Appeals, representing
the people of Fairfax County, take their task seriously and uphold the zoning scheme
as at present planned, then there need be no cause for concern. In these circum-
stances the C. LA. Headquarters cannot help but become a distinct asset to the
County.
It is evident that the Board of Supervisors of the County are of the
opinion that the C. L A. is a desirable neighbor for, on May 4, 1955, they adopted
a resolution inviting the C.I.A. to Fairfax County and, at the same time, offered
to cooperate "in all matters under its own responsibilities".
PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS, FAIRFAX COUNTY
There will be few improvements made in Fairfax County, by reason of
the C.I.A. Headquarters, which ultimately would not be made in the course of
time. The George Washington Memorial Parkway, for example, was planned to
extend northerly along the west side of the Potomac River to the proposed crossing
near Cabin John before the C.I.A. expressed its intention to build a new head-
quarters. If the Langley site is selected the parkway, of necessity, will be
constructed sooner than it otherwise might have been. The same will be true of
other highway and public utility improvements.
WATER SUPPLY
The problem related to water supply for the Langley site has been the
subject of special study on our part. We have assembled more detailed data to
supplement the information contained in Mr. James W. Head Jr. 's letter to
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RIDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Colonel Lawrence K. White, dated April 1, 1955. In that letter, Mr. Head
assured Colonel White of the potential adequacy of the water supply that the City
of Falls Church will be able to deliver to the Langley site. See Appendix "B"
for a more detailed report on this subject.
SANITARY SEWERS AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL
The problem related to sanitary sewers and to sewage disposal for the
Langley site has also been the subject of special study on our part. We have
assembled additional data to supplement the resolution of the Fairfax County Board
of Supervisors of May 18, 1955, in which it was stated that "the County can assure
within two years from this date the availability of sewers for the facility contem-
plated on a basis of charges or rentals for such service at figures which will not
exceed the regular charges elsewhere in the County". The meaning of this
Resolution was further clarified by Mr. Carlton C. Massey, County Executive of
Fairfax County, in a letter to Director Dulles dated June 30, 1955. See Appendix
"C" for a more detailed report on this subject.
TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER
We have investigated questions related to the telephone and electric
service and learned that the public utility corporations will extend their services
to either the Langley or Winkler sites and meet the requirements of the Agency
at no expense to the Government. (Appendix "D")
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
We have obtained the pertinent facts with respect to other sites.
There were certain factors, in the case of each one of the other sites, that caused
us to eliminate them from a detailed consideration; in all cases but one, they did
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIARDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
not fulfill adequately the criteria that the C.I.A. established for the site for the
new headquarters. In the case of the Winkler site we found that it meets most
of the established criteria. But there are other considerations that cause us to
recommend against the Winkler tract. The chief consideration has to do with the
physical character of the site itself. In our considered judgment the lands of the
Winkler tract are too low in relation to the Shirley Highway and to the surrounding
areas. We could not possibly recommend this site for one of the Nation's most
important enterprises in these critical times in the history of the world. It would
be most unfortunate, we believe, to spend a sum of fifty million dollars, more or
less, upon buildings and their appurtenances on the Winkler site. This site, how-
ever, may be suitable for a smaller installation.
We recommend the Langley site, a site that will provide a dignified
setting high above the Potomac River bordered by park lands on two sides and
with additional government land in the immediate vicinity to serve as a protective
buffer against the surrounding privately owned lands to the west and south. The
Langley site is already owned by the Federal Government so that it becomes
unnecessary to take additional properties from the taxrolls, an added desirable
factor.
It is important to take a long range view of this large undertaking.
The Central Intelligence Agency is a permanent division of government. As such,
it is desirable, we believe, to select for it the best possible available site even
though all of the contemplated improvements, such as the Outer Belt Freeway,
the proposed bridge near Cabin John, the George Washington Memorial Parkway,
and the proposed parkway along the Baltimore and Ohio Canal in Maryland are as
yet only in the plan stage. It may be that some inconvenience will be encountered
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-
.'4111
P84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
at the beginning of the occupancy of the new buildings for the C.I. A. at Langley;
however, this will not be of long duration, since the contemplated arterial
improvements will make this site easily accessible from all sections of the
Washington Metropolitan area. The fact remains that the site at Langley is, in
our opinion, the best possible site we know to be available which meets the
established criteria. We unhesitatingly recommend it.
Respectfully submitted,
and Rapttaito
Gilmore Tar e
17
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
GILMORE D. CLARKE
MICHAEL RAPUANO
RALPH L. MAC DONALD
WILLIAM S. BO10E
M. BETTY SPROUT
MALCOLM KIRKPATRICK
HANNES E. KAINO
RICHARD C. MURDOCK
JENNINGS E. EKEBLAD
VINCENT C. CERA51
JOSEPH F. BISIGNANO
JAMES SAYERS
DAVID J . O'BRI EN
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LESLIE G. HOLLERAN
CHARLES MAC DONALD
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
GILMORE D. CLARKE ? MICHAEL RAPUANO
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
145 EAST 32P STREET ? NEW YORK 16 ? N ? Y?
MURRAY HILL 3-6152
REPORT ON THE PROPOSED LOCA TION
FOR A NEW HEADQUARTERS FOR THE
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
October 25, 1955
The accompanying appendices, maps and charts are a part of the report
submitted to the Honorable Allen W. Dulles, Director, Central Intelligence
Agency on the same date:
Map 1 - Proposed Location Sites
Map 2 - Employees' Residences Distribution
Appendix A - Vehicular Traffic
Map A - Existing Proposed Roadways
Charts 1 - 6 inclusive - Vehicular Egress Time
Appendix B - Water Supply
Appendix C - Sanitary Sewers and Sewage Disposal
Appendix D - Telephone and Electric Light and Power
Map B - Existing and Proposed Utilities
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
WASHINGTON AND VICINITY
roved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
_
- .'"- -?;???
-t?--
? 1-
i-
' NorhBetheeda
Grove
-
?
? National Naval
?
Medical Center
1.?
1 ."Wakefield Chapel ,
-4'--
?Li___..1: '''? V.. ,=,?..,tritle,.. _
/
?
- Fort Belvoir I?
AMII .1
Ant ILIVAA.WIA
No. 671.4.1.,.1A,MII. CAA.. Ad.I.=A 0. a A,. w??,???? o. c.
lom AO INA 0??? AMA, MOTU OrO. 4.r.?
???? *AAA GO NONA IAA *IAA ?Av?
LEGEND
???
, 114' Mi? 7-?
AL-. HYbla Valley
IAA. IL.
Friendly
SCA12,1158.000
41, GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
?
PRIVATE
PROPERTY
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
;Surrataville
????
?
WASHINGTON AND VICINITY
MARYLAND. DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
4
?
D 0U
'T ,
WILL
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
APPENDIX A
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
TRAFFIC FACTORS COMMON TO WINKLER AND LANGLEY SITES
The ease with which personnel may travel to and from their place of em-
ployment is an important factor in the selection of any office building site. Neither
one of the two sites considered in this report, Winkler or Langley, have railway con-
nections or any form of rapid transit. We are informed that either of the bus com-
panies that operate in the genera.1 area is prepared to expand their operations as
necessary to serve adequately whichever of the two sites may be chosen. Private
automobiles will be the most important means of transportation and hence the only
one that will be given further consideration in this report.
Criteria established by the C.I.A. staff indicate that parking space should
be provided for cars. Map No. 2 shows the present
geographic distribution of
of privately owned
below:
C.I.A. personnel, and hence in a general way the distribution
cars. For easy reference the distribution is repeated
District of Columbia, Northwest
37%
District of Columbia, Northeast
5%
District of Columbia, Southwest
1%
District of Columbia, Southeast
7%
Arlington County, Va.
15%
Fairfax County, Va.
8%
City of Alexandria, Va.
8%
Montgomery County, Md.
11%
Prince George County, Md.
7%
Miscellaneous
.1%
A summation of the above table shows that approximately 68% of the
cars traveling to and from either site must cross the Potomac River from the
District of Columbia side in the morning and return in the afternoon. About 31%
Approved For Release 2006/U/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
(a)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
of the employees reside on the same side of the river as either of the two sites.
There are at present four bridges across the Potomac that will be
available to traffic to and from either site. The following information in regard to the
capacity of the existing bridgeshas been furnished by the Bureau of Public
Highway Bridge (14th Street) has three 13-ft. lanes out-
bound and four 12-ft. lanes inbound. Practical capacity
has been rated at 5,100 outbound and 6, 000 inbound per
hour.
Memorial Bridge has three 10-ft. lanes in each direction.
Practical capacity because of approaches has been rated
at about 4, 200 per hour in each direction. This figure has
occasionally been exceeded.
Key Bridge has two lanes in each direction with two street
car tracks. Practical capacity is rated at about 2,500 per
hour in each direction. The D. C. Highway Department in-
tends to add a lane in each direction to the bridge and to
eliminate the street car tracks. This work should be com-
pleted within two years.
Roads:
Chain Bridge is 30-ft. wide. While traffic counts show 1,500
in each direction per hour, it is doubtful if such a figure could
be reached in both directions at the same time because of the
left turn and traffic light on the Virginia side. The conflict
between the opposing direction movements would become
material as the movement in each direction became more nearly
equal.
A new bridge is proposed to be built at Constitution Avenue
within the next three or four years. It will have three lanes in
each direction. When complete it will draw off traffic from
Memorial and Key Bridges , and some from the 14th Street
Bridge.
A comparison of the present traffic counts at the various Potomac River
Bridges for the anticipated periods of C.I.A. car movement, with their rated capaci-
ties, including the improved Key Bridge, indicate sufficient capacity to accommodate
the increased load. The completion of the proposed bridge at Constitution Avenue
and the completion of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, should insure ade-
quate capacity for some time.
Approved For Release 2006/02C : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
MA
Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
A EXISTING & PROPOSED ROADWAYS
yftwan.et \ /
AMONTGOMERY COUNTY
OUT ER
FREEW A4
LOOP
LANGLEY
SITE
Highway
2 Lon? Rood
3 Lan? Road
4 Lon? Road
6 L?n? Rood
4 Lan? Dual
6 ton? Dual
LEGEND
Existing Propos?d
IPM11?1?1111111?1111.3
111111.11
11111011M MEIN 1111111111
111111111?11111 ENO MIN MIN
PUBLIC PARK LANDS
PUBLIC PROPERTY
O 1/2 1 2
SCALE IN MILES
MINIMS
DISTRICT
COLUMBIA
FAIRFAX COUNTY/
ARLINGTON
COUNTY
svotiGTON
AVE
tit
FAIRFAX
COUNTY
.0%
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
In considering the handling of C.I.A. traffic, we have assumed that the
most difficult situations will occur at the end of the day when the parking areas are
discharging. Our report accordingly deals only with exiting from the parking areas.
Staggered working hours have been discussed by the C.I.A. administra-
tive staff and may be instituted at either site. A measure of the stagger schedule
which may be required is indicated by the design time estimated for the discharge of
the parked cars. We have used theoretical "design time in estimating exiting require-
ments. Actual exit times will generally be somewhat less than those stated herein.
WINKLER SITE
Based on the residence distribution of employees, it is assumed that
about 3,000 vehicles will use the Shirley Memorial Highway to and from the direction
of the District of Columbia. About 300 will use the Shirley Memorial Highway south-
westerly from the site and 700 will use a proposed local street that we understand will
be built in time to serve this site. Since the major portion of the cars that will park
at the Winkler site must use the Shirley Memorial Highway, Chart No. 1 has been pre-
pared to show the time required to merge the anticipated 3,000 cars with the other
traffic on the two existing lanes heading in the direction of the District of Columbia.
Traffic counts taken by the City of Alexandria in April and May 1955 showed an
average of 1,100 cars per hour utilizing the Shirley Memorial Highway in the direction
of the District of Columbia between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 P.M. Using the design
criteria, road standards and ramp and lane capacities designated in "A Policy on
Geometric Design of Rural Highways" (issued by the American Association of State
Highway Officials), Chart No. 1 indicates that a design time of three hours and
eighteen minutes would be required to merge these 3,000 cars into the Shirley Mem-
orial Highway traffic. If the traffic on the Shirley Memorial Highway should expand
(c)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
30% by 1970, a design time of four hours and ten minutes would be required to merge
3,000 cars.
We understand that there have been some discussions that may eventually
lead to the widening of the Shirley Memorial Highway to six lanes at least to King
Street; it is practicable to widen this Highway to six lanes as far as the Winkler site.
Chart No. 2 shows that the design time for merging traffic from the parking area
would then be one hour, thirty minutes. If an additional lane in each direction should
be extended for any appreciable distance, it will induce additional traffic and the
time required to empty the parking lot would be increased.
In order to reach the bridges across the Potomac from the site, the cars
that use the Shirley Memorial Highway must pass through the Pentagon Interchange,
which already carries heavy traffic.
LANGLEY SITE
The George Washington Memorial Parkway must be considered as a neces-
sary adjunct to the occupancy of this site by the C.I.A. This fact has already been
recognized and the extension of the Parkway from its present terminus at Spout Run
Parkway to the site has been included in the authorization for the building if the Langley
site is chosen.
Based on the residence distribution of employees, it is assumed that
25X1 about vehicles will leave the site via the George Washington Memorial Parkway
in a southeasterly direction. It is further assumed that
will exit via Route 123 25X1
and will disburse from it into various local routes. The State of Virginia has indicated
that a widening of a portion of Route 123 will be carried out.
Since the site will initially be at the northwesterly end of the George Wash-
ington Memorial Parkway, there will be no merging problems with respect to emptying
the parking lots. Chart No. 3 indicates that the design time to discharge' p a25x1
(d)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
to the Parkway will be one hour - fifteen minutes. The chart also indicates
that 55 minutes will be required to exi
cars to improved Route 123. If
25X1
the George Washington Memorial Parkway should be constructed initially with three
lanes in the direction of the District, the design egress time for cars would WO
about 50 minutes. See Chart 4.
When the George Washington Memorial Parkway is extended in a north-
westerly direction to join the proposed Outer LoopFreeway and the proposed bridge
at or near Cabin John, it is assumed that the parked vehicles will split almost
equally, that is,
in either direction. If the Parkway is constructed with a
third lane in each direction originating at the site, as recommended in this report,
the design time to empty these
vehicles in each direction would be 43 minutes.
In determining the design exit time of 43 minutes, it was assumed that
the Parkway would be carrying other traffic to the extent of 1,100 vehicles per
hour. This figure was obtained by taking the present Shirley Memorial Highway
count for traffic headed toward the District of Columbia between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M.
If the assumed traffic on the George Washington Memorial Parkway should increase
vehicles in each dir2LX4
by 30% in the year 1970, then the design time for exiting
tion would be 46 minutes. See Chart 5.
When the Outer Loop Freeway is constructed, a direct connection to it
from the site would be desirable. Such a connection in conjunction with Route 123
25X1 would reduce the exiting time of cars in this direction to 33 minutes.
See Chart No. 6.
CONCLUSION
Basically, the major traffic problem, incident to both the Winkler and
Langley sites, is one of getting vehicles to and from the bridges that cross the
(e)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Potomac River. Traffic from the Winkler site must reach these bridges by passing
the Pentagon and the Navy Annex, both of which have large parking facilities. If
the Winkler site is selected, it is our opinion that there would be considerable vehi-
cular friction between the additional traffic that the C.I.A. building would add to
the Shirley Memorial Highway and the other cars moving in the vicinity of the
Pentagon. As contrasted to this situation, the Langley site would be served by the
extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway free of any other traffic as
far as Route 123. This factor is important because of the scheduled widening of
the Key Bridge.
From a long range point of view, the traffic situation at the Langley site
will gain further superiority over the Winkler site with the construction of the Outer
Loop Freeway and the proposed bridge at or near Cabin John. This future construc-
tion will enable a substantial portion of the C.I.A. personnel to reach Northwest
Washington and Montgomery County, Md. without entering the congested sections
of the District of Columbia. The construction of the Outer Loop Freeway and the
bridge at or near Cabin John would also benefit the Winkler site, but to a considerably
lesser degree because of the greater mileage that would be imposed upon employees.
In our opinion, the employee traffic situation at the completion of the pro-
posed building construction will be better at the Langley site than at the Winkler site.
It is our further opinion, in light of the anticipated highway improvement program,
that the Langley site will gain further superiority in the flow of employee traffic.
(f)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
25X1 Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Next 5 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
APPENDIX B
WATER SUPPLY
The results of our investigation of the existing and proposed water
supply in the vicinity of both the Winkler and the Langley sites are set forth on
Map B.
It has been estimated that the quantity of water required for the pro-
posed installation would be 400,000 gallons per day for summer months (including
air conditioning), and 200,000 gallons per day for the balance of the year.
Winkler Site
The Winkler site is serviced at present by a 16-inch water main along
the Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway by a12- inch spur entering the site. The
water for this system is furnished by the Alexandria Water Company, Alexandria,
Virginia, with a source of supply at the Occoquan Filter Plant that processes water
from the Occuquan Creek. The Alexandria Water Company proposes to build a
new one million gallon storage tank at Fort Ward. (See Map B).
In a letter from H. C. Richards, Manager, the Alexandria Water
Company to Col. L. K. White dated October 20, 1955, it was stated:
"Available and proposed supplies would appear to be
more than ample to meet the C. I. A. project and ad-
jacent development requirements."
Langley Site
Water for the Langley site will be furnished by the City of Falls
Church which purchases its water from Arlington County by an agreement entitled:
"Agreement for Sale and Delivery of Water by Arlington County to the City of
(g)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Falls Church" dated October 7, 1950, copy herewith attached. Paragraph (5)
states: "This Agreement is made for an initial period of three years and shall
be automatically renewed unless notice is given by either party to the other,
six months in advance of any contract period, and it is further agreed by the
Seller that if the Contract is to be terminated that he will allow the Purchaser
sufficient additional time to arrange and to obtain another connect on to the Dis-
trict of Columbia system before the connection to the Seller's system is discon-
tinued".
The source of the Arlington County water is the Dalercarlia Reser-
voir and Filter Plant operated by the U. S. Corps of Engineers. The water is
pumped from the Potomac River.
The City of Falls Church has an agreement, dated December 1, 1954,
with the District Engineer of the Washington District, Corps of Engineers, for the
construction of a 36-inch pipe line across the Potomac River as part of the Little
Falls Dam Project at Snake Island. It is proposed to connect this pipe line to the
Dalecarlia Filtration Plant and to the City's water system. (See Map B).
Present service in the vicinity of the Langley site consists of a 24-
inch trunk line serving McLean along Route 123 to Pine Tree Road with a 6-inch
pipe extension to Basil Road.
Mr. James W. Head, Jr., Director, The Office of Public Utilities,
City of Falls Church, was asked how soon an extension could be built from the
existing 6-inch line in Route 123 to the C.I.A. property line and whether the City
would expand its mains as may be necessary adequately to serve the proposed
improvements. Mr. Head wrote Col. L. K. White on October 20, 1955:
(h)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
wrote:
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
"Such an extension can be made, and will be made by
the City at its own expense, within a matter of weeks
from the time it is requested. If a larger line is required,
the City will provide same, either by increasing the size
or by installing part or all of the parallel 24-inch trunk
main proposed along Route 123 from the end of our present
24-inch main at Pine Tree Road to a point beyond the site
in question. Either of these alternates would be done at
City expense, and as an indication of our ability to carry
out this promise, it may be pointed out that we have budgeted
in the present fiscal year the sum of $466,550.00 for renew-
ing, rebuilding and extending our water system. Of this
amount, only $59, 937.63 had been expended in the first three
months of the fiscal year (July 1 - September 30, 1955)."
In an earlier letter to Col. L. K. White dated April 1, 1955, Mr. Head
we wish to advise that the City of Falls Church
feels fully capable of handling the water demands in the area
and does not require any proposal for financial help from
the Federal Government."
(1)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
AGREEMENT FOR SALE AIM DELIVERY OF WATER BY
ARLINGTON COUNTY TO THE C.ITY OF FALLS CHURCH
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on this the 7th day of
October19500 by and between Arlington County, Virginial
=pyolThrfrigriia-et, hereinafter called the "Seller" and the City of
Falls Church, Falls Church, Virginia, party of the second part, herein-
after called the "Purchaser", witnesseth that,
(A) WHEREAS, Public Lau 1181 80th Congress, Chapter 149, let Session,
approved June 26, 1947, authorizes the Secretary of the Army, upon the
recommendation of the Chief of Engineers and the Board of Commissioners
of the District of Columbia, to permit the delivery of water from the
District of Columbia and Arlington water systems to the Falls Church or
other water systems within the metropolitan area of the District of
Columbia in Virginial and
WHEREAS, persuant to such authority, the Secretary of the Army has
granted permission for the delivery of water from the water system of
the District of Columbia to the City of Falls Church, Virginia, and
WHEREAS, in accordance with said Public Lau 118, the Secretary of
the Army and the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia have
approved the payment for said water as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, =MODE, the parties hereto do hereby agree to comply with
all provisions of the said Public Lau 110, and they further agree as
follows:
(1) That the Seller agrees to deliver water to the Purchaser at a
connecting puint on the Seller's mains between Pimmit Run and the
Potomac River at the Virginia end of the Chain Bridge over the Potomac
River through the Seller's eonnecting piping system. This water will
be obtained from the water supply system of the District of Columbia at
the Seller's existing connections to the third high-service transmission
main at the Dalecarlia Filtration Plant. The Seller agrees to deliver
the water to the said connecting point at the pressure available in the
so-called "third high service area" of the District of Columbia water
supply system, less the friction loss through the piping system from the
reservoir to the connecting point. The Seller agrees to permit a con-
nection to its existing 24 in, main at the above specified point. Such
connection to the Arlington County system shall be made in accordance
with the requirements of the Celler and as such times as mutually agree-
able.
(2) The Purchaser agrees to accept delivery of the water at the
above specified point at the available pressure and agrees to install
the necessary connecting piping and to install a venturi type recording
meter, as near as possible to the connecting point, which shall record
and totalize the flow of water through this connection. This venturi
meter equipment shall indicate the rate of flow and shag by the total-
izer instrument the cumulative flow of water through the line, An
instrument shall be provided with daily recording charts, which shall
continuously indicate and record the tate of flow and on which may be
marked the total flow for the 24 hour period, covered by the chart and
as shown by the totalizer of the venturi meter instrument. The Pur-
chaser further agrees to permit the Seller access to this meter at all
times and the Seller shall have the right to check this instrument at any
time, both for accuracy and efficiency of operation. The recording charts
shall be made available to the Seller at bis request and shaLl be kept on
file by the Purchaser for a period of not less than years. This instru-
ment shall be visited daily by a representative of the Purchaser and a new
chart installed once every g.hours, The Purchaser agrees to install the
recording venturi meter insicument in a concrete or brick housing adjacent
to the connection and to which the Seller shall have access at his conveni-
ence,
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Appi(OeneerSlailleagE41106/0)14M4strAaRDP8*-00496000611.130400;69con-
nections between the water distribution water:of Arlington County and the
distribution of the City of Falls Church as a standby service in case of
an emergency to either system. The Purchaser further agrees to permit the
Seller to obtain water from the Falls Church system in case of an emergency
to the Arlington County system, which may be served through the Falls
Church system.
(4) The Purchaser further agrees to pay to the Seller 055.00 per
million gallons, this being considered an equitable charge for water de..
livered to the Purchaser at its connection to the Seller's main near the
Virginia end of Chain Bridge. It is further agreed that this price may
be adjusted from time to time to directly reflect any increase or decrease
in the charge for water made by the District of Columbia for water de-
livered to the Seller or to reflect increases or decreases in the coat to
the Seller of delivering water. The Purchaser agrees to pay to the Seller
once each thirty says for the quantity of water delivered to the Purchaser
and based on the quantities indicated by the recording instrument of the
venturi meter hereinbefore described plus a periodically detorMined incre-
ment which shall represent the flowthrough the vanturi meter at such
times as the rate of flau is below the minimum capacity of the instrument.
(5) This agreement is made for an initial period of three years and
shall be automatically renewed unless notice is given by eTEITZ party to
the other, six months in advance of any contract period, and it is further
agreed by the Seller that if the Contract is to be terminated that he will
allow the Purchaser sufficient additional time to arrange and to obtain
another connect on to the District of Columbia system before the connec-
tion to the Seller's system is discontinued.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto executed this agreement on the
day and date first above written in 5 counterparts, each of which shall
without proof or accounting for the other counterparts be deemed as an
original contract.
Witness:
(sed) Harry E. Wale
(SEAL) - City Clerk
Witness:
CITY OF FALLS CHURCH VA.
Dir (signed) Albert II. Orme, Mayor
By County Board of Arlii 'ton
County, Ta.
Elizabeth H. Agnew By (signed) Daniel A. Dugan
Atiests Clerk Chairman
Approved ray 10, 1950
(signed) Larue Van /later
City Atty
.11???
Apr 17 1951
Payment provisions approved:
Board of Commissioners, D. C.
Brysiedornett
ecre ary to the Board
Delivery of water, and
payment provisions, approved: Jun 13 1951
(signed) Frank Pace Jr
Secretary arthe Army
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, to wit:
I, Elizabeth C. Myers, a notary public in and for the County aforesaid in the
State of Virginia, do hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
the AGREEMENT FOR SALE AND DELIVERY OF WATER BY ARLINGTON COUNTY TO THE CITY
OF FALLS CHURCH signed by the parties thereto, on the 7th day of October 1950.
'Given under my hand this 20th day of October 1955
i(
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-0,0
d P ? (10 i(i
904:36.4
4
Notary Pub C.commission Expires October 31st, 1938
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
APPENDIX C
SANITARY SEWERS AND
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Our study of the sewage disposal problem in the vicinity of both the
Winkler and the Langley sites was based on an approximate discharge of 200,000
gallons per day.
Winkler Site
At the present time, there is a 30-inch Fairfax County sanitary sewer
which crosses the Winkler tract. The best available information indicates that
this sewer is nearing its capacity. In addition to this sewer, the City of Alex-
andria Sanitation Authority, is at present constructing an intercepting sewer
that runs parallel to the present trunk line on the property. This new trunk line
will flow to the City of Alexandria Sanitation Authority Sewage Treatment Plant
now under construction at Hunting Creek; the effluent will discharge into the
Potomac River. (See Map B).
Mr. James J. Corbalis, Jr., Engineer-Director, City of Alexandria
Sanitation Authority, in a letter to Col. L. K. White dated October 20, 1955
that describes these facilities states in part:
"These facilities are also being constructed to meet
the expected needs of the year 2000."
Langley Site
There is no existing public sewage disposal facility available at the
Langley site at this time. The nearest treatment facility is the proposed Sewage
(j)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Treatment Plant about to be constructed on Pimmit Run; the contract for this
facility is about to be let. It is designed as a secondary treatment plant with
a present capacity of 7,500 persons, a future immediate expansion to 10,000
persons possible and a further expansion to 20,000 persons if necessary.
(See Map B).
The disposal of sewage at the Langley site falls under the jurisdic-
tion of the Board of County Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia. Accor-
dingly we discussed the disposal problem with representatives of the County.
The Board of County Supervisors indicated that they will provide a sewer line to
the site as set forth in a resolution dated May 18, 1955 that states in part:
. . the County can assure within two years from this date the availability
of sewers for the facility contemplated on a basis of charges or rentals for such
sewer service at figures which will not exceed the regular charges elsewhere in
the County."
Mr. Carlton C. Massey, County Executive, Fairfax County, in a let-
ter to Director Allen W. Dulles dated June 30, 1955, further clarified this
resolution;
"It has come to my attention that the meaning of this
action of the Board may not be completely clear and I
am, therefore, writing to advise that from the discussion
by the Board in connection with this matter there is no
doubt in my mind that the Board intended to convey its
willingness to provide a sewer immediately available to
the property to be occupied by the C.I.A. with no part
of the cost to be borne by the Federal Government and
(k)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
that the customary connection charges as set forth in
our rate schedule and the customary quarterly service
charges set forth in the same schedule would be applica-
ble to this installation.
"These connection charges and quarterly service charges
would be the same as those applicable to any other com-
mercial building in the County of Fairfax."
In view of the action taken by the Board of County Supervisors of
Fairfax County, it appears evident that sewage treatment will be available by
the time the C.I.A. Building is completed.
SURFACE RUN-OFF
Winkler Site
The surface waters at the Winkler site may be drained by a network of
pipes of sizes, as required, through catch basins draining into Holmes Run that
crosses the site.
Langley Site
At the Langley site, surface waters may be drained into Pimmit Run,
that empties into the Potomac River below Chain Bridge or directly into the
Potomac, or into both.
The question has been raised concerning whether or not the Corps of
Engineers object to discharging ground waters into the Potomac. The position
of the Corps of Engineers was clarified in a letter to Mr. H. Bartholomew,
Chairman, National Capital Planning Commission from Colonel Ray Adams,
Corps of Engineers, dated August 10, 1955:
"The Central Intelligence Agency had some concern that
(1)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
this office, in referring to the Potomac watershed,
might be thinking partly of contaminated surface run-
off. Such is not the case; the position of the Corps of
Engineers applies to sanitary sewage effluent."
(m)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
APPENDIX D
TELEPHONE?
As a basis for our investigation of telephone service, it was deter-
mined to use the present installation of the various C.I.A. buildings with
slight variations.
Winkler Site
Our studies indicated that the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone
Company is now completing a new exchange building in the area of the Winkler
tract.
Langley Site
The existing facilities in the vicinity of the Ldngley site are of a minor
nature.
In a letter from John 0. Henderson, District Commercial Manager,
The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company, to Col. L. K. White, dated
October 18, 1955, copy herewith attached, the following is set forth:
"This confirms a telephone conversation today between
Mr. J. J. Candela of your Planning Staff and Mr. J. J.
Miller, Service Manager, C. & P. Telephone Company
? wherein the telephone company agrees to furnish metro-
politan area telephone service to either of the two
proposed new locations for your agency, namely, Langley,
Virginia or the site at Seminary Road and Shirley Highway,
(n)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
by the fall of 1958."
ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER
A complete investigation of the existing and proposed supply of elec-
tricity at both the Winkler and Langley sites was made. The criteria for our
investigation was based upon an estimated power demand of 10,000 KW for
permanent use and a possible 200 to 300 KW demand for temporary construction
purposes.
Winkler Site
As a result of this investigation, it was determined that the Virginia
Electric and Power Company maintains a 22 KV line across the Winkler site
with sub-stations located at Shirley, Duke and Bailey's Crossroads. (See Map B).
Langley Site
The Langley site has no existing transmission lines in the immediate
vicinity. However, there are sub-stations at McLean, Chesterbrook and Gulf
Run, with 22 KV transmission lines connecting these stations. (See Map B).
In a letter from Mr. R. C. Hopkins, District Manager, Virginia
Electric and Power Company to Col. L. K. White, dated October 20, 1955, copy
attached herewith, it is stated:
"In regard to the temporary power service for construc-
tion purposes, this can be made available on 60 to 90
days' notice from existing 4 KV feeders in the respective
areas.
"In regard to the 10,000 KW of permanent power for the
project, we enclose herewith a map of the area, which in-
(o)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
cludes both proposed sites, showing our power supply
and distribution facilities in the entire area. You
will note that there are three major sources of supply
from 110 KV transmission lines which supply a 22 KV
sub-transmission system throughout the entire area.
Any part of the sub-transmission system has ample capa-
city to supply the requirements of this project at either
of the two proposed locations or elsewhere in the general
area."
It is evident from the above statement that the Virginia Electric and
Power Company will extend their services to either the Winkler or Langley site
to meet the assumed requirements.
(p)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY
930 H STREET NORTHWEST
WASHINGTON 5, D. C.
JOHN 0. HENDERSON
DISTRICT COMMERCIAL MANAGER
GOVERNMENT SERVICE
October 18, 1955
? Mr. L. K. White
Central Intelligence Agency
2430 E Street, N. W.
Washington 25, D. C.
Attention: Mr. H. S. Chandler:
Dear Mr. White:
TELEPHONE
METROPOLITAN 7-9900
s confirms a telephone conversation today between Mr.
of your Planning Staff and Mr. J. J. Miller, Service
ager, C. & P. Telephone Company wherein the telephone company
agrees to furnish metropolitan area telephone service to either of
the two proposed new locations for your agency, namely Langley,
Virginia or the site at Seminary Road and Shirley Highway, by the
fall of 1958. This information, while not complete in details,
would meet the requirements discussed in a meeting with Messrs.'
of your office on October 7, 1955.
In connection with the above mentioned locations, nominal
metropolitan area telephone service could also be made available to
the contractor, if the telephone company receives notice sixty days
in advance of the date service is desired.
Very truly yours,
District Commercial Manager
Government Service
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
Alexandria, Virginia
October 20, 1955
Col. L. K. White, Deputy Director
Central Intelligence Agency
2430 E Street, N. W.
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Sir:
Attention:
This is with reference to the meeting in Mr. Edward Holland's
office in Alexandria, Virginia, on October 18, 1955, with your Mt.
and Mr. Harry Trager of Clark and Rapuano, and Messrs. W. I.
Gideon and D. W. Poole of Virginia Electric and Power Company, concern-
ing the supply of electricity for the proposed CIA project.
There were two proposed sites under consideration, one known
as the Winkler Tract off Shirley Highway and the other a tract of land
in the Langley area.
The discussion was in regard to the availability of 200 to 300
KW of power for temporary use during construction of the project and for an
estimated amount of 10,000 KW of power for permanent use by the project
when completed.
In regard to the temporary power service for construction pur-
poses this can be made available on 60 to 90 days' notice from existing
4 KV feeders in the respective areas.
In regard to the 10,000 KW of permanent power for the project,
we enclose herewith a map of the area, which includes both proposed sites,
showing our power supply and distribution facilities in the entire area.
You will note that there are three major sources of supply from 110 KV
transmission lines which supply a 22 KV sub-transmission system through-
out the entire area. Any part of the sub-transmission system has ample
capacity to supply the requirements of this project at either of the two
proposed locations or elsewhere in the general area.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
STAT
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO Co]., L. K. White
SHEET NO. 2
We appreciate your inquiry for this service and shall be glad
to diocuss the matter in more detail at your convenience.
enclosure
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
MAP
Bproved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100030g46
EXISTING & PROP UTILITIES
?
MERY COUNTY
LA
te
9
LEGEND
Existing Water Mains
Proposed II
Existing Sewers
Proposed
Existing Power Lines
Sub Stations
Public Property
Park Lands
I MEI MIMS
SCALE IN MILES
1,(2 1
2
IN RIDGE
STERB
GULF RUN
ero Milestone
ARLINGTON
COUNTY
Int onnection with
Art ng on County Water
System for emergency
use only
LAKE BARCROFT
LEYS
ROADS
tory ,51-gcer
Propose
Sto rag
Fort
I M.G.
Tank at
Ward
ANNANDAIE
? s
To 24" Transmission
Main and 2 M.G.
Storage Reservoir
CITY
Y DUKE
8"
City
andreira
interceptingCit fA
Ale
?stw
(Under construct ?n)
FAIRFAX COUNTY
Alexandria Sewage
Treatment Plant
(Under construction)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Inv WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
4eit'
6 December 1955
Clarke & Rapuano
145 East 32nd Street
New York 16, New York
Gentlemen:
The national Capital Regional Planning Council met yes-
terday to consider your "Report on the Proposed Location for
a New Headquarters for the Central Intelligence Agency" which
had been referred to the Council for its consideration by the
National Capital PlanningCommission following our presenta-
tion to the Commission, in which you participated, on 4 Novem-
ber 1955.
The Council indorsed the Langley site by a vote of five
to three with two members abstaining. However, several ques-
tions with regard to the Report were raised by Mr. Paul Watt,
Staff Director of the NCRPC, in his report to the Council. As
I understand it, Mr. Watt's report, along with the recommenda-
tions of the Council, will be submitted to the Commission and
will be considered initially on 7 December 1955 by a special
committee established by the Commission for this purpose.
The National Capital Planning Commission is scheduled to
consider this matter again on 15 December 1955. We are, of
course, anxious to assist them in any possible way in the fur-
ther clarification of points at issue or in the presentation
of additional information which might aid them in arriving at
their conclusions. To this end I have forwarded to you a copy
of Mr. Watt's report and would be grateful for any additional
information you could supply which would be of assistance either
to us or to the Commission.
Sinnproal.u.
L..
Deputy Director
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
GILMORE D. CLARKE
MICHAEL RAPUANO
RALPH L. MAc DONALD
WILLIAM S. BOICE
M. BETTY SPROUT
MALCOLM KIRKPATRICK
HANNES E. KAINO
RICHARD C. MUR.DOCK
JENNINGS E. EKEBLAD
VINCENT C. CERAM
JOSEPH P. IIISIGNANO
JAMES SAVERS
DAVID J. O'BRIEN
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LESLIE G. HOLLERAN
CHARLES MAC DONALD
Colonel L. K. White
Deputy Director
Central Intelligence Agency
2430 "E" Street
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Colonel White:
GILMORE D. CLARKE ? MICHAEL RAPUANO
CONSULTING ENGINEER.S AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
145 EAST 321.'P STREET ? NEW YORK Ie. N ? Y?
MURRAY HILL 3-6152
December 12, 1955
This will acknowledge your letter of December 6, together with
certain enclosures, relating to certain questions that have been raised in
connection with the location of the proposed Central Intelligence Agency
Headquarters. In a telephone conversation on December 7, you indicated
that you would like to have us comment on Circular Memorandum No. 57
of the National Capital Regional Planning Council that was prepared by
Director Paul C. Watt. Subsequently I talked with
on Friday, December 9, at which time he raised certain specific questions
that you would like to have us answer.
STAT
One of the questions raised in the Memorandum has to do with
zoning. It seems to us that the question respecting zoning is covered on
pages 12, 13, and 14 of our report under the paragraph entitled "IMPACT
OF C.I.A. DEVELOPMENT ON FAIRFAX COUNTY", as follows:
"The impact of this proposed C.I.A. development of the
Langley site upon the immediately surrounding areas in
Fairfax County will no doubt be felt, but this should result
in a minimum of detrimental effect by reason of the fact
that the site for the C.I.A. Headquarters (a) borders upon
a strip of public park land which extends to the Potomac River
on the north and partly on the east sides; (b) is insulated on
the west side by wooded areas of public lands under the juris-
diction of the Bureau of Public Roads; (c) will be insulated by
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Central Intelligence Agency
-2- December 12, 1955
"a wide strip of forest land on the south side along the
Leesburg Road. An additional factor that will lessen the
impact of this proposed development upon the immediate
surrounding areas of Fairfax County is the fact that the
largest number of employees (over 68 percent) will enter
the property via the George Washington Memorial Parkway
to be situated on park lands north of the proposed C.I.A.
Headquarters generally along the Potomac River. Approxi-
mately 3 1 percent of the employees at present live in
Virginia and some of these will also use the parkway in
going to and returning from work. In the circumst,a nces,
we doubt whether more than a very few of the C.I.A.
employees will find it necessary to change their places of
residence by reason of the location of the Headquarters at
Langley; this site, we believe, is the most convenient to
the largest number. If the Zoning Board
of Appeals, representing the people of Fairfax County, take
their task seriously and uphold the zoning scheme as at
present planned, then there need be no cause for concern.
In these circumstances the C.I.A. Headquarters cannot
help but become a distinct asset to the County."
Director Dulles has already expressed the desire of the Central
Intelligence Agency to support adequate zoning regulations in the Langley
area, inasmuch as it would be "as beneficial to the C.I.A. as it would be
to the residents." He has assured the Chairman of the National Capital
Planning Commission "that if our Headquarters were to be located at the
proposed site, we would cooperate .in every possible respect with the County
Authorities in this matter. "
Another question that has been raised has to do with the quality
of the water in the Potomac River below Little Falls. We have read
resolutions of assurance from Fairfax County officials that the sewage from
the Langley site will be treated in a new plant and that the effluent will be
discharged into Pimmit Run, entering the Potomac below Little Falls, thus
insuring that there will be no pollution of the Potomac River water supply.
The quality of the water below Little Falls will be adequately protected by
the Virginia Water Control Board and the Corps of Engineers who have
jurisdiction.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Central Intelligence Agency
-3- December 12,1955
Still another question has to do with the matter related to
omnibus transportation. On page (a) of Appendix A, entitled "VEHICULAR
TRAFFIC", of our report we state: "we are informed that either of the bus
companies that operate in the general area is prepared to expand their
operations as necessary to serve adequately whichever of the two sites may
be chosen."
In a letter from Mr. R. C. Bennett, Vice President and Assistant
General Manager of the Washington, Virginia and Maryland Coach Co., Inc.,
to Colonel L. K. White, it is stated "we wish to assure the Agency (C.I.A. )
that our full cooperation and all necessary bus services will be rendered
should the Langley site be chosen." This communication is dated September
12, 1955.
Circular Memorandum No. 57 raises some points with respect to
automobile traffic; one point has to do with the minimum requirements of
operation of the C. L A. after establishment at Langley. The writer attempted
to make it clear, at a hearing before the National Capital Planning Commission
on November 4, that the Langley site would be served adequately (a) by the
planned improvement of Route 123, (b) by the construction of the George
Washington Memorial Parkway extended from its present terminus to the site
and (c) by the planned improvements to the Key Bridge. The Parkway is
planned to be constructed as a four-lane separated facility, two lanes in each
direction. In our opinion Route 123 and the Pankway will serve adequately as
a means of access to C. LA. Headquarters. It should be noted that no other
traffic, except that bound for C.I.A. Headquarters, will go further north on .
the Parkway than the intersection with Route 123 until such time as the Parkway
is extended still further north to connect with the proposed Cabin John Bridge.
Whereas, in our report, we did not indicate in detail the places of residence of
the 37% of the employees living in the District of Columbia N. W., these places
of residence are so situated that the large majority of those using automobiles
to travel between District of Columbia N. W. and the Langley site will use the
Key Bridge, the Arlington Memorial Bridge and the proposed new Constitution
Avenue Bridge. The extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway
(Virginia), the planned improvements to the Key Bridge, and of a section of
Virginia State Highway Route No. 123, are the only improvements necessary
now to accommodate C.I.A. traffic to and from the Langley site. It would be
helpful to have certain other existing roads improved and to have Chain Bridge
widened, as stated in our original report, but these will not be required until
they come within the time scheduled for development either by the District of
Columbia or by Fairfax County.
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
? Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Central Intelligence Agency -4- December 12,1955
Certain other improvements would be helpful to the Langley site,
including the construction of the George Washington Parkway in Maryland,
the construction of the new Cabin John Bridge and its approach arteries, both
in Maryland and in Virginia. These and other improvements will be useful to
the C. LA. but they are not required by reason of the fact that the C.I.A. may
be situated at Langley.
Our review of Circular Memorandum No. 57 indicates to us no
evidence that would cause us to alter our statement in the summary of the
report that,
"It is important to take a long range view of this large under-
taking. The Central Intelligence Agency is a permanent
division of government. The fact remains
that the site at Langley is, in our opinion, the best possible
site we know to be available which meets the established
criteria. We unhesitatingly recommend it. "
Very truly yours,
Gilmore D. Clarke
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-
REPORT ON THE PROPOSED LOCATION
FOR A NEW HEADQUARTERS FOR THE
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
145 EAST 324d STREET
, Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499 9.10.9014
0100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
1,Irrr-4
2/11,7 :StyklipP84-00499R000100090
44-9
This is a draft of Clarke and Rapuanots re-
port without the attachments.
Rapuano is coming down on Tuesday, and if we
have changes to suggest at that time he will
take them back and have the report in final form
by the end Of next week.
22 Oct 55
(DATE)
M NO. irt REPLACES FORM 10-101
v
1 AUG 54 WHICH MAY BE USED.
(4'
Approved For Release 2006/02/07: CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
r
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
GILMORE D. CLARKE
MICHAEL RAPUANO
RALPH L. MAC DONALD
WILLIAM S. BOICE
M. BETTY SPROUT
MALCOLM KIRKPATRICK
HANNES E. KAINO
RICHARD C. MURDOCK
JENNINGS E. EKEBLAD
VINCENT C. CERASI
JOSEPH F. BISIGNANO
JAMES SAYERS
DAVID J. O'BRIEN
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
LESLIE G.HOLLERAN
CHARLES MAC DONALD
GILMORE D. CLARKE
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND
145 EAST 3211,P STREET ?
MURRAY HILL
Honorable Allen W. Dulles
Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Mr. Dulles:
MICHAEL RAPUANO
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
NEW YORK 16 ? N ? Y?
3- 6152
October 25, 1955
You directed us to make a study of certain suggested sites
for a new headquarters building for the Central Intelligence Agency.
This we have done and we present herewith our findings. In addition
to the report appended herewith, we shall submit, separately,
appendices to it to cover, in some detail, the factual data respecting
automobile traffic arteries, water supply, sewage disposal, and
telephone, electric light and power services.
We wish to express our appreciation to Deputy Director
White and to Messrs. Garrison and of the Agency Staff;
their assistance was invaluable.
We take this opportunity to thank all those, outside of the
Central Intelligence Agency, who assisted us in this study.
Very truly yours,
and Rap an'
Gilmore D. Clarke
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
r
n n
!.!!
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
THE REPORT ATTACHED TO THIS LETTER WAS ATTACHED
AS AN ENCLOSURE TO DD/S-55-425.
Laq - 10/29/55
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
SECRET (When Filled In)
AREA OR COUNTRY(S)
Approved ParRelease 2006/0024071:001A-RDR84-00499R8004900600r44s9
OL Ceremonies,Construction,ANDERSON,
RECD* CornerstoneL_Engineeringp Peyton F.
DDA Headquarters Building, PFEIFFER Jack
DDS New Build?ngL PrQpertv1 B.
DCI
Real Estate
P.
DOCUMENT
IDENTIFICATION OF DOCUMENT (author, form, eddreseee, title al 'eolith)
Planning and Construction of the Agency Headquarters Building
TEriaary 1946-July 1963 by Peyton F. ANDERSON and Jack B. PFEIFFER LOCATION:
Vol. I Text, Vol. II, Appendixes, 9 preliminary pages, 204 pages HS
of text, 16 appendixes totaling 297 pages, 41 photographs.
DATE
June 73
CLASS.: S
NO..
DCI -6
ABSTRACT
History of the planning, acquisition, construction and occupancy
of the CIA Headquarters Building. Use of Diary Notes of Col. L. K.
White are highlighted.
* Real Estate and Construction Division of OL
Source References used in history filed in HS/HC 8491(
FORM
8-72
USE PREVIOUS
2523
EDITIONS
HISTORICAL STAFF SOURCE INDEX
SECRET 1E2, DECLASSIFICATION OF SOURCE
CL. BY: 007622
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
113-15)
CASE FILE (DESCRIPTION)
Approved For Release 20 DP8
INSTRUCTIONS
Place card upripLimtace of charged out folder.
ilalliaii01004/WWW*1144 returned file folder.
CHARGE TO
DATE
CHARGE TO
DATE
eAJT--
/7> No 40 A.)6e
a
CASE FILE CHARGE-OUT CARD
FORM NO.
AUG 54
"9 RW:FILCAHCE:A.FOBREM'urE; 152
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
(7)
Approved For Release 2006/0SIECRW-PDP84-00499R000100090044-9
(./
Appendix Ir
PhOtographs
Figure
1
Aerial view, original Headquarters Area,
2430 E Street NW, Washington, D. C.
Building with light roof was Central
Building; smaller building on courtyard
was East Building; and the third building
was the Administration Building (formerly
the South Building).
Figure
2
Central Building, 2430 E Street NW.
Figure
3
East Building, 2430 E Street NW.
Figure
4
Administration Building, 2430 E Street NW.
Figure
5
Alcott and Barton Halls (scientific
technical intelligence centers).
and
Figure
6
Figure
7
Figure
8
Tempos I, J, K, and L
Figure
9
1016 16th Street NW (Office
and Office of Training
of Personnel
facilities. Also
overt employment office for Agency as
listed in telephone directory)j)
Figure
10
Site and block model, Campus Scheme, 1956.
Figure
11
Cornerstone ceremony, Headquarters Building,
Figure 12
Figure 13
3 November 1959.
Cornerstone, Headquarters Building
Building under construction, 1959-60.
21-6
SECRET
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/0SWEIMbP84-00499R000100090044-9
Figure 14
Figure 15
? Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure
Aerial view, Main entrance. Auditorium
under construction (Summer 19621.
Aerial view, Main and North_ entrances,
auditorium under construction (Summer
19621.
Aerial view, Main entrancef(Spring 194
Aerial view, North end/ (Spring 1963).
18 Aerial view, road system and Headquarters
area. (MAT Parkway access at top of photo.
Printing Services Building and part of steam
plant visible center and lower left.)
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure
Figure
Aerial view, access road from Route 123.
Aerial view, cafeteria entrances7('ummer
194
Auditorium, main entrance4Summer 194
Auditorium, side view.
Auditorium, close up of dome paneling and
junction of auditorium lobby with amphi-
theater.
24 Auditorium,
25 Auditorium,
entrance.
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 30
lobby entrance.
construCtion detail, lobby
Mr. Dulles's "campus." (SE corner of
building in foregroung
Main entrance, construction detail.
Canopy, main entrance, construction detail.
Cafeteria, arches and windpws.
Cafeteria, windows and arches.
- 217 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/0SE3RIE-PEDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Figure 31 Cafeteriac arches and reflections. (Note
construction detail of arches.)
Figure 32 South cafeteriar arches over entrance.
Figure 33 North Cafeteria, interior detail.
Figure 34 Cafeteria, side view.
Figure 35 Courtyard, Headquarters Building.
Figure 36 Lobby and CIA Seal, main entrance.
Figure 37 Lobby, main entrance.
Figure 38 Corridor on courtyard, first floor.
Figure 39
Leased property: (1) Chamber of Commerce
Building and (2) 1000 Glebe Road Arlington,
Virainia. I 1 STAT
STAT
Figure 40 Leased property: (1) Key Building and
(2) Ames Building, Rosslyn (Arlington),
Virginia.
Figure 41
- 218 -
SECRET
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
STAT
Approved For Release 06/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100
7:17-rirrTakUS4 V.=
Approved For For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : ClA-RDP84-00499R00010OD8449
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R00010009004479
Lk)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
i'lliaP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090
?
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
1
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Next 3 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
,
SC)
???
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
owe'
- ."--: "41 .
,PIA, ;.4..
% -.4 At 1 ?AP
4 ?
? Illeil ig,- t
?. 474. ?
. . ?
.
:4:11.. , .
? ..A.,;,.
.., .?-:-.
?,.
?04,
:11,1117:1.-;,::.:
it a
,, 4.,1:,!.4-'1.
IIND?i;.. '. ? ? '.4g. ' 1
,OPMaliargaiN/Miewiamai.-
, 4 i
41 '
* ' el ? t,!:'..T.,
;..,' . I A .? .,:?,' ?.; '`" ' ',....,-,,,,,ie v .' . A ' I
?,'Y # -amp. 11'..'" ) ? , ? ' .;. 4. '
47., .1 ?..._ ..1 _sr ,4 . ?
%. c. -, .- . . ?: ' itt," ? - . . .
?,,k.1- .; .*. . ?
.
? - -,, ..'? 7406-? - ?(.`ii...
...*1*44-4'. ?
, : ?.....7.,:a ? ?Vi4,:z.!.1, ..
?
, _ -.4???Jiti,
, A
? ',41e,:11,4?i. I , ? .,... . .-
,,:,. ?
r
...- .; ,.,,y...,,,...
-?-? ?"'4 ..., ,.
'Itimpit''l
- ' . Apkt. ^.. lo,? .
. ..k' ,lk , 14 ? l'. '' :,.-..L-- ..???- ;', , ? .1'.'F :',N,?, :- , , , -
, ? ? . ..., ?
:-?-`-',:-:I..' ?
' ? - - -, ?,'
- ? ...:.-',.. ?
?Pfsj.'
.. 1-=.1.r 4e
"....''
4:
II
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
fit-, 7, / o16
Appr
oved For Release 2006/02/07:
CIA
-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA 84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-R,84-00499R000100090044-9
ttr-e
A),
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
STAT Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
A roved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
'
"417 - ?4 ;
_
II
II 11. IIIII.Ili.11 j. 41111 I -
- lllll in _
? "s: 'II
?
. ? .
l14:lit 1
to 1....1:.i,. 1,1 ..,.r
IIVIIMCIIMILISIC=10,1101e.11111.11.1111, .11
'71r
,sitgli ...... 11 . . ;
.1 I. 1 ?. ,jpilI.0..1 11
? UD' I till
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
4,6
-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
c*N.`
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
^ ...
? ....
.... Ram
na. 0 1.0g ..,,,.:.? .
''''
ma Kair , am _g
mil 1 WW2
NM WM IIIII:,
one imi me
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
4.+
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
I III
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
App o- For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
a-t-rt:i -4-1-4:v- 4.004 s.,,pra,,,?
typ cr frAArto /1,?1vri.,
fil*Ls:1 ti?.1
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
(7/414,;,- et.ieeoad,
120-tA, /2.3
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved 84-01499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
,
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-
/7- '1
fit-71e
tp,
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Th\
4
C."
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
kr- -
ANN--
A
Abiffr
i
AlliM""""
r '
=t="
441116-- Afra===r-_
Atio
is
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
44-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
/-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
lEt
t MN I II
LI IM J ?
tirin
its
fill 11M war- t
molt lint II 'i iI1I? aII
ilL
NE INA L., Ink
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
%?'
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
?
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
it.f/tt-vz
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
v
-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07.: CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
r-t-e-frvf' I
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
r-ti44:04 4ir_t
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
(1)
(?)
- ,. ? -
a..., r
WV 101
_
7404:44;e:
"4:1 , ?%7?,, ,11% ""FeNtas 7"..rit.,170, ? ?
;Alt
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
7 /9 7 2 (1 1
) oat
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
(1)
(2)
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000/(00090044-9/
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
STAT Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
-7
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
.r-
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
. President John F.
Kennedy and Allen W.
Dulles, NSM, Award
Ceremony, 28 September
1961
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
STAT
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
rkeigr'Criefse 2006/02Ki
MEMORANDUM FOR :
SUBJECT
'tat
'RaP84-001)166?65010(f69504
10 February 1971
Support Services Historical Officer (SSHO)
Comments on the Historical Study entitled
Planning and Construction of the Agency
Headquarters Building, January 1946-
July 1963
1. Herewith my comments in reply to your memorandum of
14 January 1971 which forwarded to me an historical study on the plan-
ning and construction of the CIA Headquarters Building by Peyton
Anderson. In addition to my comments in this memorandum, I have
taken the opportunity to make a few corrections in pencil on the draft,
but these are restricted to typographical, punctuation, spelling and
similar errors.
2. My own knowledge lies largely in the legislative aspects of
the struggle for a Headquarters building, although I was aware of a
good many of the other problems as well. I will be covering the
detailed legislative aspects of our attempts to secure a Headquarters
in my own history of the Legislative Counsel's Office, 1946-56, which
I am about to commence. Unfortunately, it will be many months before
I reach the final stages of that history which deals with the building legis-
lation in 1951 and 1955, However, I believe my memory is sufficiently
secure to comment on your study at the present time, and I have reviewed
some of my own contemporary material as well.
3. My main criticism of this study in its present form would be
addressed to that portion of it which deals with the selection of the site
and the legislation itself in 1951 and 1955. I feel that the author of your
study has not gone into sufficient depth on these points. In fact, the
second half of the draft shows every evidence of being written in haste
without including many important details. My own newspaper clipping
files and memoranda which must be in OL files do not seem to have
been tapped in sufficient depth. A review of the Congressional Hearings
and Reports would also have helped strengthen the paper and avoided
some errors. Appendix J was both incomplete and poorly done; I have
revised it for you in toto.
25X1
ES/EIC- Zso o
t (Approved For Release 2006/02/Q7 ?p4c4P84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/040REIRDP84-00499R000100090044-9
- 2 -
4. For a time in 1955, the building legislation seemed to be
headed for clear sailing, and, in fact, the authorization legislation
had comparatively little trouble. However, the initial request for
appropriations to commence the lan ' n into a ? ? t from
the local residents the ress and as.......41,tuazuriations
hearin thi s.ut this o osition in
this While the forum was legislative as we as the public
media, it would appear to me that your history should go into much
greater depth on this opposition both in 1955 and again in 1956.
5, I think your study should also reflect in greater depth the
Invitation for us to come to Langley, which was issued by the Board
of Supervisors of Fairfax County, as well as the public and private
appearances which Colonel White made in sutmort of our use of the
Lan le faci I remember that I had prepare for
the DCI and me a "black book" containing tabs of back-up information
on utilities, sewers, water and similar matters on which I was sure
we would be questioned in view of comments from the opposition.
here is comparatively little reference to the Clarke and Rapuano
report, the authors' biting comments which virtually eliminated the
Winkler site, the special hearing which we had in East Building at
which Virginia State Senator Armistead Boothe appeared and similar
matters. In short, the history does not in any way reflect the flavor
of what, in fact, was a tough struggle which took the time of many of
us for a considerable period. I would be glad to assist you in any way
(short of writing it myself) in strengthening your history if you agree
these points are valid. I have talked with Col. White on several points
to confirm my own recollections. He seemed disappointed that no-one
had talked to him about this draft or used his diaries. One key incident
not covered in your draft is the Dulles-White meeting with President
Eisenhower which nailed down the Langley site. Others available who
could contribute substantive and anecdotal material include Gates Lloyd,
and Walter Elder who can give you
reaction to the executive suite.
Mr. McCone's
6. Herewith are some more detailed comments:
(1) Page 4, lines 14-16. Admiral Hillenkoetter was desig-
nated as DCI well before 30 April 1947. He took office on 1 May 1947.
(2) Page 12, line lff. It is suggested that the first sixteen
lines on this page be revised to read as follows:
Approved For Release 2006/02WIrDP84-00499R000100090044-9
1.0.
Approved For Release 2006/02/01SEIPMP84-00499R000100090044-9
UHL'
- 3 -
The DCI, DDCI (Mr. William H. Jackson), the DDA, and
Mr. Walter L. Pforzheimer, then CIA's Legislative Counsel, were
active from the spring to the fall of 1951 in attempting to secure Congress-
ional authorization and funding for a CIA Headquarters building. The
authorization was submitted
in the amount of $38, 000, 000 and was
approved by the Congress on September 28, 1951 (Sec. 401, P. L. 82-155).
While it was recognized that it would be impossible to conceal the con-
struction of a new CIA building for very long, it was determined to keep
the project classified for as long as possible. There were several rea-
sons for this: one was to avoid public reaction to a CIA move from the
center of Washington, which the public might feel was based on special
knowledge that we expected an attack in the near future; a second was to
avoid a rise in land prices in the area for as long as possible; a third
reason was to allow us to complete plans and perhaps some construction
with maximum security regarding whereabouts of communications rooms,
special vaults and other special features. [Footnote: Memo, Legislative
25X1
25X1
(3) Page 12, footnote at bottom of page. As noted above,
this footnote should be revised to read: For complete citations, see
Appendix J.
(4) Pages 12 and 13. The quotation on the bottom of page 12
v(;\ and the beginning of page 13 contains a fundamental error. It was not
Approved For Release 2006/02/FSEBETDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/OttritrfP84-00499R000100090044-9
- 4 -
General Smith who demanded a window for his office; it was Allen
Dulles who stated that he could not work in an office without a window.
At that point, General Smith drew a small window into the otherwise
windowless building in the sketch before him and said to Mr. Dulles,
"That's your office." It is not only my memory but also Mr. Houston's
that this is the correct version. In subsequent testimony, Mr. Dulles
also referred to it.
(5) Page 13, lines1-2. In the quote, reference is made to
an outside architectural firm. It might be useful to pin it down. I
1/
think the firm was Skidmore, Ownings, etc.
ILLEGIB
(6) Page 13. I think that the text here would be improved
by a couple of explanatory sentences regarding the government disper-
sal plans (not decentralization). At this particular time there was a
great deal of concern about the possibility of a future atomic attack on
the United States, and in particular on Washington to eliminate the seat
of government. Although the first Soviet atomic explosion did not take
place until a month after the approval of the authorization for a CIA
building in 1951, government plans were requiring that new government
Installations should be dispersed to a distance initially at least 15-20
miles from the center of Washington to minimize a direct hit on
Washington as well as blast damage. CIA was specifically exempted
from the dispersal plans for reasons set forth in your history. However,
White House, Congressional and other pressures urged that the CIA
building be constructed on the Virginia side of the Potomac, or in Mary-
land, to alleviate traffic conditions in Washington itself. One argument
favored Virginia because prevailing winds blow from west to east and
therefore would tend to blow radiated particles away from Virginia.
In addition, it was determined in 19 51 to build a windowless CIA building
in order to minimize the blast damage.
(7) Page 13, lines 7-9 below the quote. I have no record of
such discussions.
(8) Page 13, lines 9ff. The meeting with Senator Russell
took place on 29 August as written. The word "reportedly" should be
stricken from R. Following the quote at the bottom of p. 13, the
following should be added: (This was the same position previously adopted
by Chairman Vinson of the House Armed Services Committee).
Approved For Release 2006/02/0 z CIA-ADP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/0 P84-00499R000100090044-9
va:
- 5 -
(9) Page 14. The following material should be developed
following line 2:
At the time that we approached Senators Russell and
Byrd (Aug. 29), and during Mr. Pforzheimer's earlier conversations
with the Senate Armed Services Committee staff, the Langley site in
Virginia was the front runner.
As soon as the House passed the authorizing legis-
lation in August, and in accordance with our standard procedure, the
Chief Clerk of the House Appropriations Committee was informed of
the $38, 000, 000 authorization for a CIA building and of our desire that
the Committee appropriate the funds.
1"torzheimer was invited by Congressman Mahon, (D., Tex.), Chair-
man of the Armed Services Appropriation Subcommittee before which
the hearings were being held, to discuss the project with him informally.
The Chairman was fully briefed by Mr. Pforzheimer, who explained
that Chairman Vinson and Russell, for security reasons, had handled
the authorizing legislation themselves without any formal CIA testimony.
Chairman Mahon agreed that this would be the preferable method of
handling the matter; that he would consider the problem; and that he
would advise us if formal testimony was required. Any funding would
be contained in the Second Supplemental Appropriation Bill, 1952, then
before the full Committee,
25X1
25X1
To everyone's surprise and consternation, the
House Appropriations Committee eliminated any funds for the CIA
building in reporting out the bill on 8 October. The next day, Chairman
Mahon advised Mr. Pforzheimer that his subcommittee felt that the item
had come before them too late to be considered in detail and had there-
fore rejected it. He suggested that we have the item restored by the
Senate Appropriations Committee, and, if they approved funds for our
building, the matter could be thrashed out in conference between the two
committees. If this procedure were followed, Chairman Mahon said
that he would be inclined to accept the Senate amendment but would not
commit himself at this time. On the same date, Mr. Mahon confirmed
the denial of funds by his subcommittee in a letter to Mr. Pforzheimer. 29/
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : tIA-111DP84-00499R000100090044-9
25X1
Approved For Release 2006/ -RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
- 6 -
Considerable scurrying around ensued, both at
headquarters and on Capitol Hill, leading to the DCI's appearance [date
not yet found]%efore the Senate Appropriations Committee to seek
restoration of the funds which the House had disallowed. The DCI's
testimony was uneventful, but Mr. Pforzheimer's recollection is that
It leaned more heavily towards the Nevius tract as a site. The Com-
mittee restored the funds as requested, and, after Senate passage,
the bill went to conference to iron out disputed items between the House
and Senate versions.
A member of the Senate Appropriations Committee
or its staff later told me an interesting story that occurred during the
"mark up" of the bill. No outsiders are present during the "mark up",
at which time members of the Committee determine what items to
approve, change or disapprove. The Chairman of the Senate Appropri-
ations Committee at that time was Senator Kenneth McKellar (D., Tenn.).
He was then quite old, a little senile and given to dozing off during Com-
mittee meetings. He would then wake up and interpolate a remark and
doze off again. While they were considering the CIA building, Senator
Cordon (R., Ore.) remarked that the proposed building would be a very
interesting one because it would have no windows. Senator McKellar
woke up with a start and said "What: A building without any women: "
and went back to sleep again.
Just as everyone was beginning to breathe easier,
the other shoe was dropped. On 23 October, 1951, Chairman Mahon
wrote General Smith that the House position had been sustained in con-
ference, and that no funds for a CIA building were provided by the
conferees. He assured us, however, of consideration at a future date. 30/
General Smith replied on 26 October, stating that CIA would resubmit
the project "as soon as possible", 31/ but this did not occur in 1951.
The loss of funds to construct a CIA building was
indeed a blessing in disguise. Our estimates as to space requirements
were woefully inadequate, as were the cost estimates. No firm decision
had been reached as to a site. In fact, we were ill-prepared to make
even those submissions which achieved our authorization.
[Pick up text following quote at top of p. 15.]
(10) Page 19. Mr. Thornton's name is misspelled both in
line 5 and in the footnote at the bottom of the page.
* See page 6a
Approved For Release 2006/02i3O'nt1'J-PDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
- 6a -
*1 have found no written record of the date in our files. Mr. Francis S.
Hewitt, then as now a member of the professional staff of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, checked the Committee records for me in
February 1971. They have no record of the date of Gen. Smith's appear-
ance in Executive Session. As was the custom at that time, no tran-
script of the testimony was made. From internal evidence, however,
Mr. Hewitt and I have concluded that the date of the DCI's testimony was
almost certainly 12 October 1951.
Approved For Release 2006/02407 .rerATDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/ecrti7lrop84-00499R000100090044-9
(11) Pages 19-25. These pages do not adequately reflect
the activities regarding a building in 1952. Early in January 1952, an
Ad Hoc Committee in Regard to New CIA Building was established under
Col. White, ADDA. I Chief, Administrative Ser-
vice, was designated as secretary, maintaining and distributing the
minutes. At its first meeting on 10 January, the Ad Hoc Committee was
advised that four possible sites were available: Langley, the Old Soldiers'
Home, the Nevius tract, and a tract in Suitland. The DCI had already
stated that a tract in Suitland would not be satisfactory. The committee
decided to concentrate on Langley (although the DCI had indicated that it
might be too distant from the center of things) and the Old Soldiers' Home,
as the $38, 000, 000 authorized would probably not be sufficient for the
monumental type building required on the Nevius tract. Mr. Pforzheimer,
a member of the committee, pointed out that the steps the committee was
taking had been urged by him in mid-November, and that now two valu-
able months had been lost; that speed was of the essence if we were to
secure appropriations in the 1952 session of Congress.
At the second meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, 16 January,
Col. White reported the DCI's decision that the Langley and Suitland sites
were not to be considered; that the Nevius tract was his objective; and
that the only alternative to be considered was the Old Soldiers' Home
site. [Other matters of interest were also discussed and are included
in the minutes, copy in LC files currently in my office for the next few
months]. At a meeting on 30 January, PBS was advised of our desire
to proceed with Nevius, and that the DCI would not consider Langley
under any conditions. Meanwhile, another problem arose in the winter
of 1952. This was in the form of congressional hearings before the
House Public Works Committee (ignorant of any possible CIA interest)
as to the ultimate disposition of the Nevius tract, including the possibility
of surplus sale, return to private ownership, or turning it over to the
National Capital Parks and Planning Commission. Subsequently, through
CIA intercession, the bill was stricken from the House consent calendar,
thus killing it for the remainder of the session and leaving us free to
consider our plans for using the tract.
Towards the end of May, 1952, Legislative Counsel recom-
mended that, in the absence of any emergency, no CIA legislation should
be submitted to the Congress in this session. It was obvious that with
an economy wave and in a Presidential election year, and with Congress
Approved For Release 2006/02hUfartiPORDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/0
8
RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
anxious to adjourn for the party conventions and campaign, nothing but
the most pressing legislation and appropriations would be considered.
Nevertheless, the Bureau of the Budget included a request for funds
in the amount of $38, 000, 000 in the draft
which they forwarded to the Congress early in June.
26x1
intormed uenerai smith that, in nis opinion, it woula oe maavisaole to
proceed this year as it might subject CIA to undue publicity and criticism.
In view of this opinion, General Smith determined not to proceed, and
the $38,000, 000 request was withdrawn from the bill.
(12) Page 25. Following footnote 47 and before the sentence
beginning "However, almost one year later, ..." insert the following:
Search for a site for the building did not cease, however.
At the end of 1952 and the beginning of 1953, consideration was given to
the possibility of construction on the 2430 E Street property. (Footnote:
Memo, James A. Garrison to DDA, dated 6 February 1953, Subj.:
Estimates for Proposed CIA Building, in LC file, Building & Grounds
#1, 1951-53.)
(13) Page 28. Following footnote 48 in text add the following:
In 1953, there was little activity on the Congressional
front for a CIA building. In June, Col. White, Acting DD/A, raised the
question as to whether it was advisable to discuss the matter with the
Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee in order to insure
their support with the Bureaiof the Budget. [LC Daily Log, 2 June 1953].
On 9 June, Col. White, Mr. Saunders, the Comptroller, and Mr.
Pforzheimer met with Kenneth Sprankle, Chief Clerk of the Committee,
.s.," to see whether Chairman Taber or the full Appropriations Committee
might at least give some expression of endorsement to bringing the Agency
together in one building, particularly as we had eliminated any funds for
construction of a new building from this year's budget. Mr. Sprankle
said that such support should come from the Executive Branch initially
as we might wish to use the Congressional endorsement to coerce the
Approved For Release 2006102/07 : 61A-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
r -
Approved For Release 2006/0
- 9 -
-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Executive Branch. Col. White assured him that this was not so, as the
Bureau of the Budget agreed we should have a building. Mr. Sprankle
noted that, as yet, we had no firm proposal for a building or costs; that
any such Committee move would be premature; that we should raise
the question at a later date when figures were available for the Chairman
to assess costs against potential savings. [LC Daily Log, 9 June 1953].
By September, the site selection was still in doubtf Col. White informed
Mr. Pforzheimer that he had discussed the matter with the DCI and DDCI
on 12 September, and that the DCI was favoring the present site at 2430
E Street while the DDCI favored Langley. GSA held to its position that
there was no building presently available which could house the whole
Agency, and that they would support air request in Congress. [LC Daily
Log, 16 September 1953]. No final determinations were yet in sight,
and none were made in 1953. In March 1954, Senator Homer Ferguson
(R. Mich.), who was handling CIA appropriations in the Senate, asked
whether we would be requesting funds for a building. Mr. Dulles informed
him that we were requesting no funds for this purpose. Senator Ferguson
approved this position, as he felt it would be unwise to ask for such funds
this year. [LC Daily Log, 8 March 1954]. Later that year, as planning
continued, Mr. Dulles sought the permission of the Director of the Office
of Defense Mobilization, Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, for exemption from
the Government's "dispersion standards" which would require new govern-
ment construction to be located ten or more miles from the perimeter
of an urban target. On 31 December 1954, Dr. Flemming concurred in
the CIA request, adding the hope that we consider locating a portion of
the Agency at an emergency relocation site. [LC Files, Building &
Grounds #1, January-July 1955].
(14) Page 35, line 11. One of the sites listed here is Hybla
Valley, Virginia. As I believe this is the only time that that site is
mentioned, and as I have no recollection of it, perhaps it could be more
clearly defined. Was this the site we ultimately discussed as the Winkler
tract? My memory is that while we may have started with a maximum
of 40 proposed sites, this number was rapidly reduced to 28. My recol-
lection, which may be at fault, is that when we reduced the 28 sites to a
more manageable number for serious consideration, the primary starters
were Langley, Winkler, the Old Soldiers' Home, 2430 E Street, and the
Nevius tract. Some Maryland sites had to remain in contention for an
extended period of time because of the great pressure we were receiving
from the two Maryland Senators (Beall and Butler, 1b4lieve) to locate in
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2006/02/0MDP84-00499R000100090044-9
- 10 -
Maryland despite the overwhelming distance and traffic problems to the
White House and other installations which this would entail. 2430 E Street
was finally eliminated because of the impossible parking situation as well
as the traffic jam it would cause. Somewhere along the way the Nevius
tract was dropped for a variety of reasons which included the great expense
which would be required for a "monumental" building to conform with Fine
Arts Commission requirements as well as the fact that the tract was too
small.
(15) Page 36, line 9. Following footnote 61 insert:
At the Steering Committee meeting of 22 December
1954, Colonel White noted that the Southwest Washington Development
Project would probably be too far in the future to be used by the Agency.
inserted:
(16) Page 37, line 10. The following material should be
Col. White stated that the DCI was "very interested"
in obtaining the necessary approvals and funds in 1955.
advised the Committee that there were now six possible sites, with
Langley. and Arlington Hall the most desirable.. The DCI favored
Langley at this point and so did the Steering Committee. [LC files,
Steering Committee meeting minutes]. The need for this formal Steer-
ing Committee must have been minimal. The LC files do not include
the minutes of the second meeting and the third meeting took place in
October 1955!
(17) Page 39, line 5. Here we have a quick jump from
the Bureau of the Budget approval of our proceeding with a request to
(Congress for authorization and funds to construct a CIA building without
any reference to any of the details involved. To be sure, much of this
belongs in the Legislative Counsel's history but these files (now in my
/possession) should be reviewed by whomever rewrites the building history
for information which could properly be included in the latter. I am
reluctant to undertake the writing of the 1955 building activities from the
legislative standpoint at this time as it really is the last chapter of the
(Legislative Counsel's history, 1946-56 and I am not anxious to start that
history by writing it backwards. If you desire that I do so, however, I
will comply. Nevertheless, I believe the following comments may be
Approved For Release 2006/02/07-:-CLIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/904,A-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
%L-611'61
pertinent at this point. Legislation authorizing a CIA building was intro-
duced in the House by Chairman Carl Vinson (D., Ga.) of the Armed
Services Committee on 20 April 1966 and, on the same day, in the Senate
by Chairman Richard Russell (D. , Ga.) for himself and Senator Leverett
Saltonstall (R., Mass.) of the Armed Services Committee. As originally
introduced, the bill provided for funds not to exceed $6 million for the
acquisition of land and $50 million for construction. It passed the House
in that form. In the Senate, the bill was considered by the Real Estate
and Military Construction Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and they made some major changes in the CIA proposal.
The record would indicate that, during our hearings before this three-
man subcommittee, only Subcommittee Chairman, John Stennis (D., Miss.)
and Senator Francis Case (R., S. D.) were present and Senator Henry
Jackson (D., Wash.) was absent. During the course of our testimony before
this subcommittee one of the Senators complained that our cost estimates
per sq. ft. were quite high. He then referred to another federal building
under construction, without naming which one it was, saying it was being
constructed at a considerably lower average cost per sq.ft it took soMe
time to ascertain what building the Senator was talking about and that that
building had a much higher rate of unimproved space than we could have
in our headquarters. By that time the Subcommittee and the full Senate
Armed Services Committee had reduced the amount to be authorized for
construction to $45 million. The Senate Committee also felt that the price
of $6 million for the acquisition of private property, should that be required,
was excessive. It reduced this figure to $1 million. As the Langley site
was still actively being considered, and was perhaps favored, the Senate
Committee also added the sum of $8. 5 million available for transfer to
the National Capital Planning Commission and the Interior Department for
the acquisition of land and the necessary construction of the extension of
the George Washington Memorial Parkway from its then terminal point at
Spout Run to the Langley site. The Committee added the proviso that if
the Langley site were not chosen, the $8. 5 million would not be available
for obligation. Finally, reflecting congressional and public dismay that
World War I and II temporary buildings had not been demolished, the
Committee directed that at such time as CIA occupied its new building,
the Administrator of GSA was directed to demolish temporary building
space equivalent to that which CIA would relinquish. Mr. Dulles was
dismayed at the loss of $5 million in his construction request and he
wrote the Committee Chairmen requesting that the $5 million be restored
in conference as the budget estimates on which we had based our requests
were extremely tight. The conferees adopted the Senate Committee
version described above but restored $1 million to the construction funds
making a total of $46 million for that purpose.
Approved For Release 2006/02/97 ,:pAtDP84-00499R000100090044-9
LIO
Approved For Release 2006/02/
- 12 -
4DP84-00499R000100090044-9
(18) Page 39, lines 12-14. The statement concerning the
appropriations should be considerably expanded. The House Appropri-
ations Committee authorized the expenditure of $3 million for the pre-
paration of detail plans and specifications for the proposed building.
The remaining funds were denied because it was felt that there was still
inadequate planning with respect to a site and the building itself. At
that point the sites being considered were Langley, Winkler tract, 2430
E Street, the Southwest Washington Redevelopment area, the Casey tract
behind the Bethesda Naval Hospital and a tract in Suitland, Maryland.
As noted above, the Maryland Senators and at least one Maryland Con-
gressman were still exerting pressure for us to locate in their state.
The scene then shifted to the Senate Appropriations Committee where,
for the first time, local opponents and proponents of the Langley site
and proponents for the Winkler tract were heard. The testimony of
these witnesses should be reviewed as a part of the building history
even though the initial forum was legislative. The building history does
not reflect either this vocal opposition or the many meetings which
Col. White attended and at which he spoke in support of our interests,
particularly in the Langley area. The Senate Appropriations Committee
approved the $13 million for planning which the House Appropriations
Committee had authorized but also reduced the amount available for
the purchase of land for the building, should a non-government owned
site be selected, from $1 million to $350, 000. In addition, they
authorized $4 million for transfer to acquire the land and to commence
construction of the extension of the George Washington Memorial Parkway
provided the Langley site was selected. The positions of the two Approp-
riations Committees was compromised so that we received a total of
$5. 5 million for the preparation of detail plans and specifications and
for other purposes (which would include either the Parkway or the acqui-
sition of a building site). (Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1956, P. L.
84/219, approved 4 March 1955). A year later the remaining sums were
appropriated in the amount of $49 million to construct the building and
finish the Parkway to the site, (Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1957,
P. L. 84/814, approved 27 July 1956.)
(19) Page 40, line 7. I do not remember from memory that the
figure of 100 acres was a firm criterion. This can be verified from your
files. I notice that footnote 71 at the bottom of the page refers to some
letters in the Evening Star. This does not appear to be a correct citation
for the text.
(20) Page 40. The last four lines on this page seem a little con-
fusing. Negotiations with the National Park Service, I believe, were
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 CIA-RPP84-00499R000100090044-9
_
Approved For Release 2006/024QiiRIARDP84-00499R000100090044-9
- 13 -
restricted to the problem of the Parkway which was under their control
in the Interior Department. Negotiations with the Bureau of Public
Roads concerned the actual building site which was on their property.
I remember that we entered into certain negotiations for the property
site which required a study of the deed of gift from the old Leiter estate
to the Government but I would have to check our files more closely to
see exactly what this entails.
(22) Page 47. On this page reference is made to the question
as to whether CIA would undertake to construct the building under its
own supervision or utilize GSA as its agent. I think it would be pertinent
if the history pointed out that this controversy had been foreseen. Section
401 of our basic building authorization act of 1955 was carefully drafted to
authorize the DCI to provide for a Headquarters installation rather than
having the usual authorization running to the Administrator of GSA, and
it was passed in that form. This placed in the Director's hands the con-
trol over the design and construction of our facility. It was only after
considerable debate and study of the pros and cons that it was finally
agreed to place this responsibility in GSA hands. On line 15 of this page,
Col. Grogan is referred to as the CIA Public Relations Officer and foot-
note 83 also refers to him as the Public Relations Officer to the DCL
I CIA has always been careful to deny having a public relations officer
even though Col. Grogan and his successors' duties involve contact with
the press. Col. Grogan signed as Assistant to the Director and I think
our historical study should probably follow that line.
(23) Page 50. In lines 4 and 5, following the quotation, Sherman
Adams is referred to as Executive Assistant to President Eisenhower.
Actually, Governor Adams' title was The Assistant to the President. The
footnote at the bottom of the page regarding General Bragdon is also in
Ierror. General Bradgon's title was Special Assistant to the President.
He was not assigned to the Council of Economic Advisors. Also on this
page as well as on the preceding and subsequent pages, your historian
discusses our relationship with Public Buildings Administrator Peter
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
25X1
Approved For Release 2006/0j1q:Ctik-i4DP84-00499R000100090044-9
- 14 -
Strobel. He does not appear to have grasped the enormity of Com-
missioner Strobel's conflicts of interest. ' Rarely was Director Dulles
so angry as when he was apprised of Strobel's unauthorized designation
of a co-architect for the building. Strobel's conflicts in this and on
other occasions were brought out at Congressional hearings (U.S. Congress.
House. Committee on the Judiciary. Antitrust Subcommittee Hearings,
Activities of Peter Strobel, 1955.) They are also discussed in a recent
book entitled Conflict of Interest in the Eisenhower Administration by
David A. Frier. (Ames, Iowa Iowa university Press, 1969, at pages
91-102 and, in particular, page 99.)
(24) Page 57, line 4. This statement is not strictly accurate.
As noted above, the funds in hand at this time were in the amount of
$5.5 million which had been appropriated on 4 August 1955. The remain-
ing $49 million was not authorized until 27 July 1956, shortly after the
signing of the contract with Harrison and Abramovitz noted in the foot-
note on this page.
(25) Pages 57-59. The text commencing with the phrase "At
the time " to its end on page 59 gives every evidence of being rather
quickly put together, and it does not reflect the considerable activity
involved. (One thing missing is the culmination of negotiations with the
Interior Department over certain property rights at the site, While a
lot of this activity was geared to possible legislative action, some
references to it should tpapar in the text at this point The basic prob-
,WVIAatzene44..x....,,..M., 4,,I.,0%......e.o.1J43...
ern arose from the fact that it would apparently'be impossible to house
25X1 all the CIA employees in a building which could be constructed for the
$46 million authorized by the Congress. It could barely be done, if at
all, with the $50 million which we had originally requested from the
Congress and, since the authorizing legislation of 1955, construction
prices had risen about 5.7% with some prospect of a similar rise in the
forthcoming year. At this point Mr. Dulles, on the basis of advice
received from his staff, felt that he should ask the Congress in 1956 for
$10 million additional authorization as well as for the remaining $49
million of the original authorization for the building and the Parkway.
He discussed this matter with key government officials and key leaders
on Capital Hill. The latter were not very receptive at this point, although
many of them expressed sympathy with our problem in response to Mr.
Dulles' oral briefings and the subsequent letters which he sent them.
In May 1956, Senator Russell, whose wisdom in such matters was
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIAIDP84-00499R000100090044-9
srmr,
r r
- 15-
outstanding, advised the Director that this would not be a good time to
seek additional authorization, due to the fact that it was late in the session
and in a Presidential election year. He felt that CIA should get as much
of the authorized funds as they could in the current session, and then
perhaps return in January 1957 for an additional authorization when we
/ had firmer figures. This was basically the route that was followed. On
1 June 1956, the DCI appeared before the Defense Subcommittee of the
\ I House Appropriations Committee in support of the remaining $49 million
of our authorization and this was approved by the Committee and the
House in the Supplemental Appropriation Bill, 1957.
When the bill reached the Senate Appropriations Committee,
however, Mr. Dulles had raised with them the possibility that an
additional $10 million authorization might be required. This brought
the particular opposition of Senator John Stennis (D. , Miss.) both at the
hearing and in a statement on the floor of the Senate on 9 July 1956.
He felt that CIA could certainly construct an appropriate building for
its people with the $46 million authorized. In addition, he pointed out
that, while Mr. Dulles had cited a construction cost rise of 5.7% since
the original authorization, the DCI's possible request for an additional
$10 million was an increase of more than 21% over the initial authorization.
As a result, the Senate Appropriations Committee threw two serious
hookers into their approval of the $49 million appropriation. The first
restriction was a directive that CIA should plan to house all of its head-
quarters personnel within the limits of the $46 million authorized for
construction. The second was that these funds should not be obligated
or spent until the Chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission
should certify that written commitments had been obtained from the
appropriate local authorities for the financing and construction of roads,
sewage treatment plants, public transport and other local facilities which
the Commission deemed necessary to service the selected site. This
latter restriction probably reflected certain doubts and questions which
the Commission had raised in their reports in first turning down and sub-
sequently approving CIA use of the Langley site.
A study of the authority of the National Capital Planning Com-
mission indicated to the General Counsel that they did not have the
authority which the Senate Appropriations Committee had directed them
to exercise. Furthermore, involving them at such a point would open a
real can of worms. The problem of the Committee directive,which would,
in effect, house all of CIA personnel in a building constructed for $46 million,
Approved For Release 2006/02/0 -61A-AP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
crorr
bAT
- 16 -
was also difficult. Mr. Dulles had already surfaced to the Committee
the possibility that we would have to retain the permanent buildings at
2430 E Street except for the building which would be displaced by the
new throughway as well as certain other permanent construction build-
ings in which we were presently housed. The only assurance that we
were able to make was that we would vacate all of our temporary
buildings. As a result, language somewhat less restrictive to that
drafted by the Senate Appropriations Committee was drafted and sub-
mitted to the key members of the Senate and House Appropriations
Committees who would be involved in the compromise between the
House and Senate versions as conferees. These restrictions, which
appeared the Conference Report, but not in the law itself, provided
that the Agency make "every effort" to construct a building which
would accommodate all its headquarters personnel within the provided
amount of $46 million and also directed that these funds not be spent
in such a way as to make it necessary for the Congress to authorize
additional funds at a later date. The conferees eliminated the require-
ment of certification by the Chairman of the National Capital Planning
Commission but directed that none of the funds be obligated or spent
until the DCI had obtained written commitments from the appropriate
local authorities regarding the construction of roads, sewage treatment
plants, public transport and other local facilities necessary to service
the site. With these caveats in its Conference Report, the Congress
then passed the Supplemental Appropriation Bill, 1957, authorizing
the appropriation to CIA of $49 million which covered the remaining
sums for the building construction and the extension of the Parkway.
The bill became law on 27 July 1956. On 8 November 1956, the DDA
sent a memorandum to the DCI stating that the necessary written
commitments from the local authorities and facilities had been
received and the DCI approved this memorandum on 12 November,
thus complying with that particular caveat of the Congress.
(26) While rumblings and even staff studies were prepared in
1957 looking to the possibility of securing further congressional authori-
zation and funds for construction in light of increased costs, nothing
came of them and there was no further congressional action taken in
connection with the present building.
(27) One factor not raised in the basic study was a legal problem
which was given careful consideration and which was discussed in the
course of Congressional hearings. This was the question as to whether
Approved For Release 2006/62/tif : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
, Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : qTROP84-00499R000100090044-9
- 17 -
we would proceed by direct appropriation for the building or work out
?a lease-purchase agreement. It was finally concluded that the latter
route presented many difficulties and additional costs and it was agreed
to go forward by direct appropriation.
(28) While I am not sure at the moment just where it would fit
in, I recall one story that should not be lost. At one of the early con-
gressional hearings, Mr. Dulles had an artist's rendition of what the
front of the building would look like. Presumably it had been prepared
in the office of Harrison and Abramovitz. One of the features of that
drawing was a large pool of water in front of the main entrance which
is now occupied by the grass plot. A member of Congress, in the
course of the hearing, asked Mr. Dulles with some shock whether he
really proposed to have a swimming pool in front of the building. Al-
most within a matter of minutes, on our return to Headquarters, the
blue pool was painted over greeit for grass.
(29) Page 62. Footnote, Mr, Gilmore D. Clarke,of Clarke
and Rapuano was also a member of the Fine Arts Commission, 1932-
1950 and its chairman from 1937-1950, as is also noted in the footnote
on page 39.
(30) Pages 68-69. It is noted from various staff studies that
the auditorium was also supposed to be a hall of honor and exhibit
area. Unfortunately, the lack of funds did not permit this and only
the bare auditorium was built. At one point, the DDCI, General
Cabelt, discussed with Mr. Pforzheimer the need for a special
"trophy room" in which could be placed honorg and awards which the
Agency and its individual employees had received from various
governments and the like as well as being sufficiently secure to show
various types of Agency gadgetry. Space again made this impossible.
(31) The refererkFe to parking space on this page should include
some statement, regardi24,Mr. Dulles and his trees. The DCI insisted
that many of the trees in the parking lots be preserved and replanted
in little islands after the parking lots had been laid. I do not have the
exact figures as to how many par1514 spaces these trees cost us but
it was quite large. Mr. Dulles, allegedly used to come out on weekends
and tie bands around the tree( he wanted preserved. Details of this
story can be obtained froro.FCol. White,
Approved For Release 2006102/07 : CIIVRDP84-00499R000100090044-9
25X1
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2006/02/0g.ze1'Ai DP84-00499R000100090044-9
- 18 -
(32) Page 81-82. Incidentally, I do not note anything in this
history regarding the extensive security arrangements which were in
force during construction under
(33) Fage 82. Here there is mention of the fact that the bids
for construction were somewhat lower than expected because of the
economic situation at the time. Actually, the monies expended in con-
struction were at least $3 million less than the $46 million we had
available. As these were "no year funds", they remained available to
us and some of the money was eventually used for the construction of
the new printing plant at the site which was opened on 13 September 1967.
Mr. Warner, the Deputy General Counsel, believes that some of this
remaining money was also used when it became necessary for the
Government to condemn some private property adjacent to the site on
which it was proposed to build some high-rise apartments. Mr. Warner
is not sure that the condemnation money came from these extra con-
struction funds, and this will have to be checked.
25X1
fljfy
(34) Pages 86-87. The section on the cornerstone laying
ceremony is woefully inadquate, being largely restricted to a quotation
of the President's remarks which might properly be included in Appendix
H to which the Director's remarks have been relegated. A copy of the
official program which contains the President's and the DCI's remarks
might be attached as an appendix. Actually, the planning that went
into the cornerstone laying ceremony was meticulous and took the time
and energy of many people as can well be imagined in view of the
President's attendance. Prior to laying the cornerstone, he drove
up the new section of the Parkway and cut the ribbon as an opening
ceremony. He then continued up the Parkway by car, but I believe he
left the cornerstone laying ceremony by helicopter for Gettysburg as
I think he had to vote as this was Election Day. There were all sorts
of committees established and I do not recall them all. of ILLEGIB
the General Counsel's Office was charged, as I remember it, with
choosing our prettiest girls as ushers. John Warner, the Legislative
Counsel at that time, was in charge of protocol and has one or two
good stories to contribute on that score. Tickets had to be printed as
well as various ribbon badges to designate who was doing what. Security
had to be coordinated with the Secret Service. I think there was a dry
run with the helicopters so they would have no trouble landing and taking
off with the President.. It was decided that it would be appropriate if
the Rev. Frederick Brown Harris, chaplain of the U.S. Senate,were
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 :-CtA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
r9f/
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 .r9wEpP84-00499R000100090044-9
- 19 -
to give the Invocation and Benediction. Somehow, Col. White, to Harris'
amazement, located the Reverend somewhere in the deep South to issue
the invitation. The length of the Invocation far exceeded any staff study
CIA had ever prepared and threatened to keep us there until darkness fell.
In other words, this section should be considerably expanded.
,// (35) Page 87. The first sentence following the quotation of the
17sident's remarks does not make sense and should be straightened out.
(36) Page 88. There is a sentence in 1ines9-11 regarding the
curved roof of the cafeteria and this brings to mind an interesting high-
light arising out of the habit of the Washington Evening Star sending
periodic flights over the building to photograph the progress in its
construction as a newsworthy item. In their issue of 13 June 1960, they
printed one of these early views and caused us some laughing embarrass-
ment by their caption which noted, "The crescent-shaped objects at left
are decorative waterfalls." Actually they were the curved steel girders,
not yet installed, which hold up the roof of the cafeteria:
(37) Page 94. Lines 5-8. Mention is made here of the 47
special "Relocation Bulletins" which were issued in connection with the
move to the new building. These were on a special blue paper to dis-
tinguish them from other memoranda floating across people's desks.
They were written in a prose style that not even a mother could love,
and it was inevitable that sooner or later a parody would appear --
and appear it did. On blue paper and in the same form as the regular
"Relocation Bulletins", some prankster produced a "Relocation
Bulletin" on the use of the toilets. It was very funny to everyone who
saw it, except the senior personnel in the DDS and General Cabe11.
All copies were immediately sought out for destruction. I seem to
recall that Security was asked to find the perpetrator of the horrendous
feat but9as I think the author was a member of the Office of Security,
I do not believe he was ever surfaced. I do not recall whether or not
I still have a copy, but if one could be found, it would certainly enliven
this history.
(38) Page 94. I think it should be more clearly spelled out
that the DDI components were the first elements to move into the
building in the fall of 1961. The planning for the physical move involved
great detail and was well done. However, at the time of the first move,
I think the far end of the DDP part of the building was still partially open
Approved For Release 2006/02agg RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
(\)
ILLEGIB
Approved For Release 2006/Og1 -RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
%Lilian- 1
- 20 -
so that heavy equipment could be brought in. This resulted in another story
about the building which is a fond memory to many of us. As cold weather
approached, and that far end of the building was still partially open, the
building became infested with the cutest collection of field mice you ever
saw. In the course of serious dictation, soberminded DDVers would be
interrupted by piercing shreaks from their secretaries which would herald
the fact that another mouse had just appeared. In the Historical Intelligence
Collection, we were continually setting mousetraps with devastating effect,
including the fact that the Curator's extremely squeamish secretaries
would not empty them, and that task fell on the Curator himself. Not
only was the building open at the far end, but the cafeteria was not yet
open, and everyone was eating out of the vending machines or "brown
bagging it". Thus the mice had a never ending supply of food. The
mice also had the habit of chewing through telephone wires and once
chewed their way through the special "gray phone" wires creating a
security problem which resulted in having to have the mice cleared;
Thus do legends grow.
,(39) Page 96. The picture which is Figure 12 following
page 96 depicting President Kennedy decorating DCI Dulles is misdated;
the correct date is 28 November 1961.
(40) Page 97. Lines 3-5. The history here notes Mr.
McCone's occupation of his 7th floor suite in March 1962. It should also
be noted that Mr. Mc Cone moved to the building on the day he was sworn
in, and he occupied temporary quarters on the third floor until the 7th
floor suite was ready. It is recommended that someone talk to Mr.
Elder, regarding Mr. McCone's feelings
about the 7th floor arrangements which were at times almost un "ntable.
He was never happy with them.
(41) Page 98. I am not sure of the details but some mention
might be made here of the dissatisfaction with the building's air
conditioning system which continued for many years. I am not sure
that we ever accepted it.
(42) While there is considerable information in Appendix I
regarding the re-laying of the cornerstone, the contents of the corner-
stone box and how they were selected and how the cornerstone box was
made, I think there should be some mention in the text of the simple
ceremony that took place on 2 November 196o. It should be recalled,
Approved For Release 2006/02/07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9
Approved For Release 2006/02/MMTDP84-00499R000100090044-9
_
- 21 -
perhaps in the portion of the text dealing with the original laying of the
cornerstone in 1959, that while it appeared that the President and other
officials who participated were cementing it into place, actually the
"cement" was a non-holding mixture of sugar and water and the box in
place was only a temporary one. During the ceremony, President
Eisenhower asked Mr. Dulles what was in the cornerstone box and the
Director laughed and said it was too secret to disclose. As soon as the
uests had departed from the 1959 ceremony, the cornerstone and the
box were removed until they were required to be in place a year later.
(43) Appendix A should be expanded to show more Congressional
'7tion, the final laying of the cornerstone in 1960, etc.
re The old Appendix A, "Buildings Occupied ... in 1953" should
be ilumbered. They may all need renumbering.
Appendix H should include a copy of the cornerstone laying
ram, (which includes the President's end DCI's remarks and was
lished after the ceremony), plus the program which was distributed
at the ceremony itself, the invitation to the ceremony, etc.
5_7-\1\vir. Pforzheimer and should be substituted.
Appendix J on Congressional References has been redone by
Appendix K should be carefully rechecked.
Appendix L needs to be completed.
Appendix N doesn't add much. There are much better studies
if needed.
Attachment
Revised Appendix J
ILLEGIB
YV al Le r torz.geirner-
Curator
Historical Intelligence Collection
Approved For Release 2006/0V07 : CIA-RDP84-00499R000100090044-9