GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

April 2001 STATE DEPARTMENT

Decision to Retain 

Embassy Parking Lot 

in Paris, France, 

Should Be Revisited

GAO-01-477

Page 1 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Description of Primary Embassy-Owned Office

Buildings 26

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State 29

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements 37

Figures Figure 1: Diagram of the Parking Lot, the Ambassador’s Residence,

the Embassy, and the Surrounding Neighborhood 7

Figure 2: Diagram of the Ambassador’s Residence, the Gardens, and 

the Parking Lot 9

Figure 3: Parking Lot With the Ambassador’s Residence in the 

Background 10

Figure 4: View from the Ambassador’s Residence Showing the 

Parking Lot and Nearby Apartment Buildings 11

Figure 5: Garden Area of the Ambassador’s Residence 12

Figure 6: Vehicle Entrance to the Embassy 15

Figure 7: Rue Boissy d'Anglas, Public Street on East Side of the

Embassy 27
Page 2 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot
Page 3 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Letr

April 13, 2001

The Honorable Judd Gregg

Chairman

The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, 

and the Judiciary

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Frank R. Wolf

Chairman

The Honorable José E. Serrano

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, 

and the Judiciary

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The U.S. government owns a 0.4-acre parking lot adjoining the U.S. 

ambassador’s residence in a prime location in Paris, France. In 1998, the 

State Department’s Office of Inspector General reported that the property 

was underused and that continuing to park embassy vehicles on this highvalue property was not economically justified. In February 2000, the 

department reported that it had decided to retain the lot and to continue 

using it for parking because it believed the property was needed to enhance 

security for the U.S. mission and that French authorities were highly 

unlikely to permit development of the property. 

This letter responds to a requirement contained in a conference report that 

we study State’s decision to retain the parking lot.1

 Our report (1) assesses 

State’s rationale for retaining the parking lot for security purposes and (2) 

analyzes the factors to be considered in determining the merits of selling 

the property. 

1

H.Rept. 106-1005 at 297 accompanying H.R. 4942 (enacted into law as P.L. 106-533).
Page 4 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

We interviewed officials at State Department headquarters who are 

responsible for overseas embassy security and real estate issues, including 

the Assistant Secretary for Administration. We also visited Paris, France, 

where we made first-hand observations of the parking lot and surrounding 

properties. In Paris, we interviewed embassy officials— including the 

Chargé d’Affaires (the officer in charge of the embassy), the Administrative 

Counselor, and the Regional Security Officer—and French government and 

private sector real estate experts. More details about our scope and 

methodology can be found on page 23. 

Results in Brief State said that the parking lot is needed for various security reasons and 

should not be sold. However, our analysis shows that there may be 

alternative means to achieve security needs. According to State, the 

parking lot enhances security at the U.S. mission in Paris, primarily by 

protecting about 40 government-owned vehicles from terrorist actions such 

as attaching bombs or otherwise tampering with the vehicles. Based on our 

analysis, however, we determined that there are alternative secure parking 

arrangements that potentially could be established without the existing 

parking lot. State also indicated that the lot provides other security benefits 

that are important but less essential. For example, it reported that the 

security setback2

 afforded by the lot prevents unauthorized vehicles from 

getting close to the rear of the ambassador’s residence. However, if the 

parking lot were sold, the setback between the residence and the edge of 

the lot would still be over 160 feet, more than three times the 50-foot 

setback standard for ambassadorial residences.3

Several factors determine the merits of selling the lot, including the 

potential sale price, the feasibility and cost of providing secure parking 

alternatives for official vehicles, and the potential need of the property as a 

site for building a new U.S. embassy. According to French real estate 

experts, the lot has exceptional potential for the development of 

apartments and could sell for about $10 million. These experts and French 

officials from the national and city governments that would have to 

2

Setback refers to the distance between a government building and the perimeter wall or 

fence separating it from any property not controlled by the U.S. government.

3

State Department security standards require a 50-foot setback for new ambassadorial 

residences. The standards do not specifically address existing residences, such as the one in 

Paris. However, State’s Office of Diplomatic Security said that it would be desirable to have 

a 50-foot setback for all ambassadorial residences.
Page 5 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

approve the sale and/or development of the property believe that there 

would be no insurmountable legal impediments to selling the property for 

private development. While the parking lot provides security 

enhancements, it would be feasible, based on our analysis, to meet the 

embassy’s security needs without the parking lot if the embassy can 

arrange alternative secure parking for official vehicles. One alternative 

would be to build an underground facility on the grounds of the 

ambassador’s residence at an estimated cost of $1.5 million. Finally, the 

department has determined that the lot and adjoining U.S. government 

property would not be large enough to use as a site for building a new 

embassy that meets security standards and that the lot is therefore not 

needed for this purpose. 

We recommended that the Secretary of State initiate a formal study to 

determine the feasibility of selling the parking lot. This study should verify 

the potential sale price of the property and determine the feasibility of 

obtaining alternative, cost-effective, and secure parking for official 

vehicles. Because the State Department did not indicate if it planned to 

implement our recommendation and because it opposed the sale of the 

parking lot without first exploring this option, we have added a matter for 

congressional consideration to require State to conduct a formal study to 

determine the feasibility of selling the parking lot.

Background Identification and sale of excess property has been a long-standing issue 

for the State Department. In 1996, we reported that, in addition to 

properties State had identified for potential sale, it also owned other 

properties worth millions of dollars that were potentially in excess of 

State’s needs, had questionable value, or were expensive to maintain.4

 To 

support efforts by State’s Under Secretary for Management to identify 

potentially excess overseas real estate, the Inspector General agreed to 

include identification of such properties as part of its inspections and 

audits, where possible. In September 1998, an inspection report by the 

Office of the Inspector General concluded that continued use of the Paris 

property to park vehicles was not economically justified and recommended 

that the State Department decide on the best use for the property. In 

addition, the Office of Inspector General informed the Under Secretary in 

4

Overseas Real Estate: Millions of Dollars Could Be Generated by Selling Unneeded Real 

Estate (GAO/NSIAD-96-36, Apr. 23, 1996). 
Page 6 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

October 1998 that the parking lot was underutilized. Two possible options 

were to sell the property or build on it. 

In February 2000, the Office of Foreign Buildings Operations reported to 

the Office of the Inspector General that the department had decided to 

make no changes in its use of the property. State believed the lot was 

needed for security reasons and that France would probably not permit 

development of the property. In March 2000, the Office of the Inspector 

General closed the recommendation based on State’s response. Inspector 

General officials said they did not explore alternative means of providing 

security that could increase the feasibility of selling the property or verify if 

France would permit development of the property. 

The parking lot is part of an approximately 3.4-acre parcel of land about 

500 feet from the embassy that contains a 5-story building of about 55,000 

square feet. The U.S. government purchased the property in 1948 for about 

$2 million. The building and 3 acres of grounds are used as the 

ambassador’s residence. The remaining 0.4 acre5

 is used as the primary 

parking area for the embassy. The lot has spaces for about 75 vehicles. 

The lot is located in an historic neighborhood with about 70 feet of frontage 

on Avenue Gabriel, which leads to the grounds of the Élysée Palace, home 

of the French President. The lot overlooks the Champs Élysée, about 300 

feet away. Figure 1 shows the location of the parking lot, the Ambassador’s 

residence, the embassy, and the surrounding neighborhood. 

5

In a 1998 inspection report, the Office of the Inspector General, based on information 

supplied by the embassy, described the parking lot as a 1-acre parcel purchased in 1928 for 

$1.25 million. However, our work shows that the 0.4-acre lot is part of a larger 3.4-acre 

property purchased in 1948 for about $2 million. 
Page 7 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Figure 1: Diagram of the Parking Lot, the Ambassador’s Residence, the Embassy, and the Surrounding Neighborhood

The light shading represents the 3.4 acre parcel that includes the Ambassador’s residence and the 

parking lot. The dark shading represents the U.S. Embassy.

Source: State Department.

Rue Du Faubourg Saint Honore

Apartments and offices

Apartments

Open

Garden

Shops U.S.

Ambassador's

residence

Avenue Gabriel

U.S. Embassy

Garden

British

Embassy &

Ambassador's

residence

Restaurants

offices and

shops

Japanese

Embassy

Public underground parking

Avenues Des Champs Elysee

Public gardens

Rue Boissy d'Angias

0 200 100 300 400 500 feet

Concorde

De La

Place

Elysee

Palace

`

`

Shops

Embassy parking lot

Garden

Rue De L Elysee`

`

,

`

`
Page 8 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

The parking lot is secured by stone and concrete walls on three sides of 

about 10 feet and by a metal fence covered by material to prevent ground 

level observation on one side. Security is provided by a heavy metal gate 

and a 24-hour guard. The lot is located along the side of the lower gardens 

at the ambassador’s residence, separated by concrete and stone walls. 

Apartment buildings overlook both the parking lot and the ambassador’s 

residence. The apartments are built up to the wall of the parking lot at one 

point. Other apartment buildings are built up to the wall of the residence. 

Figure 2 shows the proximity of the parking lot to the residence and the 

residence’s gardens. 
Page 9 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Figure 2: Diagram of the Ambassador’s Residence, the Gardens, and the Parking Lot

The shaded area represents the 3.4 acre parcel, including the Ambassador’s residence and the 

parking lot.

Source: State Department.

Residency

Front

courtyard

Embassy

parking 

lot Lower

gardens

Upper

gardens

Shops

U.S. Ambassador's

residence

Apartments and offices

Apartments Open

Avenue Gabriel

Rue De L Elysee

Shops

Rue Du Faubourg Saint Honore

Elysee

Palace

`

`

`

`

,

Public gardens

Gates

British Embassy

Chancery

0 100 50 150 200 250 feet

Garden
Page 10 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Figures 3, 4, and 5 below show the parking lot, the residence, and the 

gardens behind the residence.

Figure 3: Parking Lot With the Ambassador’s Residence in the Background

Source: GAO. 
Page 11 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Figure 4: View from the Ambassador’s Residence Showing the Parking Lot and 

Nearby Apartment Buildings

Source: GAO.
Page 12 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Figure 5: Garden Area of the Ambassador’s Residence

Source: GAO.
Page 13 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

State’s Rationale for 

Retaining the Parking 

Lot for Security 

Purposes

According to State, the most important benefit provided by the parking lot 

is the security it provides for government-owned vehicles used by 

personnel at the embassy. Security officials stressed that there is a threat to 

U.S. government personnel and property in Paris and that, although the 

threat to U.S. interests has not been particularly high in the past, post 

personnel have not been immune to terrorist activity. There were three 

attacks directed against U.S. personnel in the early 1980s, including the 

assassination of a U.S. government official in 1982. Moreover, the State 

Department now treats every post as a potential target because of the 

transnational nature of terrorism.6

 State has also identified other less 

essential security enhancements that the parking lot provides for the 

ambassador’s residence. These enhancements include protecting the 

ambassador’s residence against physical attack and eavesdropping, 

protecting and maintaining the privacy of events in the residence’s garden, 

and providing secure parking for events at the residence. In addition, 

officials have indicated that the lot provides secure parking for privately 

owned vehicles and a secure staging area for high-level visits. As follows, 

we discuss our analysis of each of the security benefits cited. 

Providing Security for 

Government-Owned 

Vehicles

According to embassy officials, the security of the parking lot makes it 

difficult for terrorists to place bombs on, or otherwise tamper with, official 

vehicles. About half of the spaces in the parking lot (39 of 75) are assigned 

to official vehicles from 6 U.S. agencies. Twenty-seven spaces are reserved 

for the use of various State Department offices, including the motor pool 

and General Services Office, five are reserved for Defense Department 

agencies, and the remaining seven are reserved for four other agencies. We 

counted 44 vehicles in this lot during an after-hours visit, most of which 

were official vehicles. 

Parking facilities at two nearby U.S. government-owned buildings are filled 

to or near capacity with official vehicles. The embassy’s basement garage 

has 25 spaces, all of which are reserved for official vehicles; and during an 

after hours visit, we counted 33 vehicles crowded into the garage. Another 

embassy parking area at an office building about 1 mile away has 20 spaces, 

6

This policy is consistent with recommendations contained in the Report of the 

Accountability Review Boards on the Embassy Bombings in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam 

(January 1999). The Accountability Review Boards, led by Admiral William J. Crowe, Jr., 

were established to review the circumstances surrounding the 1998 embassy bombings and 

State’s vulnerability to terrorist threats.
Page 14 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

17 of which are reserved for official vehicles, with only 3 unassigned 

spaces, which are used for visitors. 

The State Department believes that the terrorist threat in Paris is sufficient 

to warrant continuous protection for official vehicles and that parking 

them in insecure public lots would result in unacceptable risks. Officials 

said that if these vehicles were parked in unprotected areas, such as public 

lots, terrorists might have greater access to these cars. With sufficient time, 

they could potentially plant explosive devices that would not be easily 

detected before detonation because they could be well hidden or disguised 

to look like a part of the vehicle’s undercarriage.

Official cars are currently permitted to enter the embassy courtyard, after 

being inspected for explosives, to pick up and discharge passengers (and 

occasionally may enter the underground garage). If an undetected 

explosive device concealed on one of these vehicles detonated when the 

vehicle was close to the building’s walls, the damage to property and 

personnel would be extensive. Therefore, lack of secure parking for these 

vehicles would force the embassy to consider preventing these vehicles 

from entering the embassy courtyard. 

Figure 6 shows the vehicle entrance to the embassy. The figure illustrates 

that vehicles can approach the embassy prior to inspection at the gate and 

can get close to the embassy wall after they are cleared through the gate. 
Page 15 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Figure 6: Vehicle Entrance to the Embassy

Source: GAO.

Other Security 

Enhancements Provided by 

the Parking Lot Are Less 

Essential 

The State Department listed several other security enhancements provided 

by the parking lot. Our analysis of these enhancements shows that they 

may not be essential or that there are readily available alternatives that 

could provide comparable security. The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration agreed that these enhancements were far less important 

than the secure parking for official vehicles provided by the parking lot. 

Protecting the Ambassador’s 

Residence Against Physical 

Attack and Eavesdropping

In February 2000, the department reported that the parking lot provides 

much needed perimeter security for the ambassador’s residence, making it 

almost impossible for an unauthorized vehicle to get close to the rear of the 

residence. Officials in Washington, D.C., and at the post said that it is 

preferable to have as much setback as possible for protection against 

explosions or other terrorist acts, eavesdropping, surveillance, break-ins, 

and thievery. These officials expressed concern that, if the parking lot was 
Page 16 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

sold and developed into apartments or offices, terrorists or foreign 

governments could lease or purchase space in the buildings, thereby 

making it easier for them to commit acts damaging to U.S. interests. 

Even without the lot, the setback would exceed State’s standards. We 

determined that the ambassador’s residence is more than 160 feet from the 

closest edge of the lot. Current State Department standards call for a 50-

foot setback for new residences; the standards do not mention the desired 

setback for existing residences. We also noted that the residence faces onto 

a main street with little setback and with shops directly across the street. 

Furthermore, the apartments next to the parking lot and the ambassador’s 

residence already have a direct line of sight into the residence, which poses 

some risk of eavesdropping. 

Protecting and Maintaining 

Privacy of Events in the 

Residence’s Gardens

The security of people attending outdoor events in the gardens of the 

ambassador’s residence is also a concern. However, such events are 

infrequent. On July 4, 2000, there was a large-scale event in the gardens 

attended by about 2,000 people. But, according to the embassy security 

office, there were only two other events during the year that took place in 

the gardens. Both of these were smaller events, one with 300 guests and the 

other with about 35 guests. Construction of private apartment buildings on 

the parking lot would pose some additional threat to persons attending 

events in the gardens. However, we noted that there is already some risk 

from the existing apartment buildings that overlook the parking lot and 

gardens. 

Providing Secure Parking for 

Events at the Ambassador’s 

Residence

The lot also provides a secure parking area for large events held within the 

ambassador’s residence. However, embassy officials indicated that cars 

bringing high-level guests generally discharge them at the main entrance 

and then park in the front courtyard or on nearby streets. Officials said 

Paris police are accommodating when it comes to parking vehicles for 

events at the residence and will generally allow cars of high-level guests to 

park on the street. Parking for other guests is available in the public garage 

near the embassy, less than 2 blocks away from the back entrance to the 

residence. Security officials may also use the parking lot on occasion to 

inspect caterers’ vehicles entering the gardens. Officials believe that 

arrangements could be made with local police to have these vehicles 

inspected on the street behind the residence. 
Page 17 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Providing Secure Parking for 

Privately Owned Vehicles

The lot also provides secure parking for privately owned vehicles. About 

one-third of the spaces (28) in the parking lot are made available to 

privately owned vehicles of embassy employees at no cost. Ten of the 

spaces are provided to embassy section heads to commute to and from 

work.7

 The remaining 18 spaces are used by employees whose work 

schedules make it difficult to use public transportation and by visiting U.S. 

officials that work in other buildings in Paris.8

 The parking lot protects 

these cars from the risk of theft, vandalism, and terrorist action that they 

would face if parked in public facilities or on the street. However, the 

embassy believes that providing secure parking for these vehicles is not 

essential and that alternative commuting means are available. Private 

vehicles are already at risk because they are not under U.S. government 

control when parked in lots or garages at the owners’ residences.9

 They are 

rarely allowed within the embassy courtyard and only with advance 

permission from security and only after being inspected for explosives. 

They cannot be parked in the underground garage. Therefore, there would 

be little danger of a private vehicle entering the courtyard with an 

undetected bomb attached that could detonate and damage the embassy. If 

the parking lot was not available, these employees could park in a 24-hour, 

public-parking garage that is closer to the embassy than the parking lot for 

about $14 daily, or they could use public transportation.

7

According to an embassy official, most U.S. government and foreign service national 

employees walk or use public transportation to commute to and from work. However, there 

may be some employees that commute by privately owned vehicle and park in nearby public 

facilities or commercial garages.

8

At the time of our visit, there were also eight vehicles (official and private) in the parking 

lot awaiting shipment, sale, or acquisition of license plates.

9

On-street parking is very limited and unsafe due to incidences of theft and vandalism. U.S. 

employees are reimbursed for parking costs at their residence.
Page 18 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Providing a Secure Staging Area 

for High-Level Visits

Officials at the Office of Inspector General and the Bureau of Diplomatic 

Security said that the parking lot could be used to support visits by highlevel officials, including the President. Secret Service officials agreed that 

the parking lot could be useful to support high-level visits. The parking lot 

could, for example, be used to assemble motorcades. However, it has not 

been used much for this purpose. A Secret Service official indicated that 

the former President made only one trip to Paris in the last 2 years (in 1999) 

and only two in the last 4 years.10 Furthermore, they said that they could 

arrange alternative security measures if the parking lot was no longer 

available. 

If the President stayed at the ambassador’s residence, as was done by the 

former President during a 1999 visit, the “secure package” (the President’s 

cars and Secret Service support vehicles) would generally stay in the front 

courtyard or in the embassy garage. Other official U.S. government cars 

would return to their normal parking place overnight, in the embassy 

garage or the parking lot. Some cars in a large motorcade, including some 

used by government staff, are generally rented by the day and do not have 

secure parking overnight. These must be inspected for explosives before 

joining the motorcade the next day. This could be done at other locations if 

the parking lot was unavailable. The top-ranking Secret Service official in 

Paris noted that the French police are flexible when it comes to arranging 

parking and forming motorcades for U.S. high-level visits and would be 

prepared to accommodate U.S. security needs if the parking lot was no 

longer available. For example, the French police might agree to restrict 

traffic on Avenue Gabriel and block off an area for the motorcade to 

assemble. 

The former Secretary of State made several visits to Paris per year in the 

last few years. According to security officials, the motorcades were formed 

at the hotel where she stayed and the secure package would most likely 

have used parking areas in or around the hotel guarded by U.S. government 

personnel, rather than the parking lot. Other U.S. government officials also 

stay in hotels. Therefore, motorcades for these officials would not be 

staged in the parking lot.

10The Secret Service also provided protection for four other visits to Paris during 1999 and 

2000. One visit was by the former First Lady, one by the daughter of the former President, 

and two by another former President. Officials could not recall if any of the motorcades for 

these visits used the parking lot for staging or parking.
Page 19 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Factors Affecting the 

Merits of Selling the 

Property

Several factors should be considered in determining the disposition of the 

parking lot. French government officials believe that France would permit 

the sale and development of the parking lot, and private sector real estate 

officials believe that developers would pay about $10 million for the 

property. However, before a decision is made to sell the property, the 

department would need to arrange alternative secure parking for official 

vehicles that is cost effective. One potential alternative would be to build 

an underground facility on the grounds of the U.S. ambassador’s residence 

at an estimated cost of about $1.5 million. The amount of secure parking 

required would depend on the number of official vehicles at the embassy, 

which could change due to embassy right-sizing. The lot and adjoining 

property also have been proposed as a potential site on which to build a 

new embassy. However, State has determined that the land parcel formed 

by the lot and adjoining gardens is not large enough to use as a site for a 

new embassy and is therefore not needed for this purpose. 

Potential Sale of Property 

for $10 Million

The parking lot could be sold and private development would not face 

insurmountable obstacles, according to French government officials that 

deal with real estate proposals from foreign governments, city officials that 

deal with requests for construction permits, and a local real estate lawyer 

who works with the embassy. Private development plans would have to be 

approved by various French zoning and construction offices to ensure 

compliance with applicable building codes and special restrictions on 

building in this historic and culturally important neighborhood. These 

restrictions include the need to retain the wall, gates, and about 80 feet of 

garden between the building site and the street. There are also restrictions 

that apply to building size and use.

Local real estate representatives said that buyers would be enthusiastic if 

such a uniquely located property became available for sale. Rarely does 

land come up for sale as close to the Élysée Palace and the Champs Élysée. 

Market price would depend on the type and size of structure that could be 

built there. The realtors we spoke to believe that apartments, similar to 

those located next to the parking lot, would probably be the highest value 

use for this property. 

Based on their experience with the market, real estate experts we spoke to 

estimated that the parking lot would sell for about $10 million. These 

estimates are based on total available floor space for an apartment building 

of about three floors above the ground. The estimates also assumed the 
Page 20 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

required garden area setback. The experts emphasized that land prices had 

increased dramatically since 1997. The Assistant Secretary for 

Administration cautioned that an estimated market value of $10 million for 

the lot may be high and that French building restrictions might 

substantially reduce the price potential purchasers would be willing to pay.

If the U.S. government decided to sell portions of the rear gardens of the 

residence along with the parking lot, the sales price would be much higher. 

For example, the back gardens adjacent to the parking lot are twice the size 

of the parking lot, which could potentially bring the sale price of a 

combined parcel (lower gardens and parking lot) to about $30 million. The 

real estate lawyer said that the residence (including the parking lot) is now 

considered one parcel but that there were no restrictions on selling part or 

all of the gardens along with the parking lot. 

The real estate lawyer said that the United States could place stipulations 

in a sales contract that would limit how the purchaser could develop the 

property. For example, the U.S. government could stipulate the property be 

developed only for housing and could limit the number and size of windows 

on the side facing the residence. However, it would not be possible to 

stipulate who could buy the property or lease space after the property was 

developed. 

Potential Alternatives for 

Secure Parking 

Before deciding to sell the parking lot, the embassy would have to 

determine that alternative secure parking for official vehicles could be 

arranged at another location, preferably near the embassy where the 

vehicles would be readily available for use. We identified two potential 

alternatives. One alternative would be to seek secure parking space in the 

underground public lot under the Place de la Concorde near the embassy. 

This lot has more than 800 spaces on 3 levels; it also has a private level. At 

the time of our visit, there were at least 30 available public spaces, although 

the lot was full one afternoon during our visit. The embassy estimated that 

it would cost about $57,000 per year to house 45 vehicles in this garage if 

spaces could be reserved. Security guards currently assigned to the parking 

lot could potentially be reassigned to protect a U.S. government section of 

the facility. The embassy did not know if management of the facility would 

permit the presence of embassy guards. If not, the embassy could approach 

other commercial parking garages within a few blocks to seek 

arrangements for secure parking. 
Page 21 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Another alternative is to build an underground parking facility beneath the 

residence’s gardens adjacent to the parking lot. The British embassy, 

located between the U.S. embassy and the parking lot, built an 

underground parking garage for about 25 vehicles beneath its gardens. 

According to rough estimates that the U.S. embassy obtained at our 

request, the likely cost to construct a similar facility for 50 vehicles under 

the gardens of the residence is about $1.5 million. 

Embassy officials have not explored the feasibility of expanding the 

capacity of the parking area in the basement of the embassy. However, they 

believe that this may be extremely expensive and difficult given the age of 

the building and its proximity to underground power lines and the subway.

Size of Embassy Staff Could 

Affect Amount of Secure 

Parking Needed

An ongoing U. S. government effort to reconsider the appropriate size of 

U.S. posts may affect the number of official vehicles needing secure 

parking. The Overseas Presence Advisory Panel, created by the Secretary 

of State in 1999 to consider the future of U.S. overseas representation, 

called for the streamlining of U.S. embassies to reduce security 

vulnerability, achieve budget savings, and free up resources for other 

priorities. In early 2000, an interagency committee, chaired by the 

Secretary of State, began studies to determine the appropriate number and 

composition of staff at U.S. overseas posts, including pilot studies of the 

embassy in Paris, which has more than 900 U.S. and foreign national 

employees, and 5 other posts. In November 2000, the Ambassador reported 

that initial study results had not led to recommendations for substantial 

changes in workload that would lead to significant personnel reductions. 

Nevertheless, he believed that there are opportunities to reduce workload 

and personnel levels that would reduce costs and security vulnerabilities 

and that efforts to right-size the embassy in Paris should continue. In 

January 2001, the Chargé d’Affaires said that the embassy was waiting to 

see how the new administration would approach reassessments of 

embassy size.

Parking Lot Does Not 

Provide a Suitable Site for a 

New Embassy

Current embassy office buildings in central Paris are vulnerable to terrorist 

action due to their limited setback from public streets. (See appendix I for 

more information on these buildings.) As a result, the State Department 

plans to build a new, secure embassy in Paris some time in the next 15 

years. The department believes the parking lot and adjoining gardens of the 

ambassador’s residence are unsuitable as a building site because together 

they are only about 230 feet wide. The State Department requires a 100-foot 
Page 22 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

setback for new embassies. (This is twice the setback required for 

ambassadorial residences.) It would not be feasible to maintain this 

setback on each side of a new embassy as this would leave a width of only 

30 feet to build a large new building. In 1999, the U.S. Ambassador 

proposed to develop the parking lot and adjoining gardens of the residence 

for embassy office space. However, State rejected this proposal because 

the lot was not large enough and because it believed that the proposal was 

incompatible with zoning restrictions. 

 Conclusions State’s decision in February 2000 to continue using the lot for parking was 

not based on a full consideration of security needs, secure parking 

alternatives, and the merits of selling the property. French authorities have 

indicated that the property is valuable and marketable. At a time when the 

State Department has billions of dollars of security construction and 

maintenance needs at its embassies and consulates around the world, the 

sale of the parking lot in Paris, France, should receive serious 

consideration if State can arrange alternative, cost-effective, and secure 

parking for official vehicles and if a purchaser would pay $10 million for the 

lot. We therefore believe State’s decision should be revisited.

To develop a sound basis for deciding on the disposition of the property, we 

recommended that the Secretary of State initiate a formal study to 

determine the feasibility of selling the parking lot. The study should verify 

the potential sale price of the property and determine the feasibility of 

obtaining alternative, cost-effective, and secure parking for official 

vehicles. The State Department did not address our recommendation but 

stated that it opposes the sale of the parking lot for security reasons.

Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration

In view of State’s position, the Congress may wish to consider requiring 

that State perform a comprehensive study to determine the feasibility of 

selling the parking lot. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, State did not comment 

specifically on our recommendation to perform a formal study to 

determine the feasibility of selling the property, but it opposed the sale of 

the parking lot based on security reasons. State questioned the feasibility 

and potential costs of obtaining alternative parking for official vehicles 
Page 23 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

without having seriously studied the alternatives. Through a feasibility 

study, we believe that State could verify the potential sale price of the 

property, explore potential parking alternatives, such as construction of a 

secure underground parking facility, and determine if such alternatives are 

cost effective and if they would provide the degree of security required. We 

believe that it would be worthwhile to fully consider sale of the property 

because the potential revenue of $10 million could provide State with 

resources to fund alternative, secure parking, as well as address some of its 

many other security and real estate needs in Paris and around the world. 

State’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. State also provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated into the report where 

appropriate. 

Scope and 

Methodology

To assess State’s rationale for retaining the property for security purposes, 

we interviewed State’s Assistant Secretary for Administration and 

headquarters security experts from the State Department’s Bureau of 

Diplomatic Security and its Office of the Inspector General, as well as 

headquarters officials of the Secret Service. We also examined documents 

and studies prepared by the Office of the Inspector General regarding use 

of the parking lot and related security issues in Paris and the department’s 

responses. We visited the embassy in Paris, France, in late January 2001, 

where we observed the parking lot and surrounding buildings and 

compared security that would be afforded with and without the parking lot 

to the department’s standards and stated needs. We also explored security 

actions that could be taken if the parking lot was sold. We discussed the 

security benefits and use of the parking lot with key embassy officials, 

including the Chargé d’Affaires, the Regional Security Officer, the 

Administrative Counselor, the General Services Officer, and a Political 

Officer. We met with several agencies’ representatives to discuss the 

security afforded by the parking lot to their operations. We received 

briefings on the security threat to embassy facilities and employees. We 

also obtained data on parking policies and practices for government-owned 

and personal vehicles at the embassy. We did not, however, assess the 

agencies’ needs for official vehicles. 

To analyze factors to be considered in determining the merits of selling the 

parking lot, we obtained estimates of the property’s market value and 

development potential from French real estate experts. To obtain French 

views on potential zoning and other restrictions that may affect sale or 

development of the property, we met with national and city government 

officials that the U.S. embassy identified as responsible for approving U.S. 
Page 24 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

government real estate proposals and government or private construction 

plans. At the national level, we met with the Director of the Office of 

Construction and the Director of the Office of Urban Planning in the 

Prefecture of Paris. At the city level, we met with the Director and Assistant 

Director of Urban Planning in the Office of the Mayor of Paris. We also met 

with a French real estate lawyer. We explored parking alternatives such as 

public and commercial garages. We also toured an underground parking 

facility built at the British embassy on property that is similar in size and 

location to the gardens of the residence. We identified and explored two 

other factors that could affect decisions to retain or sell the property. First, 

we obtained information on the overall size of the U.S. government 

presence in Paris and the status of efforts to consider adjustments to that 

size that could affect the post’s security requirements and overall real 

estate needs. Second, we discussed the feasibility of U.S. government 

development of the parking lot and adjoining land with U.S. and French 

government officials. Finally, we discussed the tradeoffs and 

considerations in selling or retaining the property with State’s Assistant 

Secretary for Administration. 

We conducted our review from January through March 2001 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 25 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the Honorable Colin L. Powell, the Secretary of State. We 

will make copies available to others upon request. 

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford, Director

International Affairs and Trade
Page 26 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Appendix I

Description of Primary Embassy-Owned Apendxies

Office Buildings ApendxiI

The U.S. government owns four office buildings in central Paris. Two of 

these buildings are joined together to form the embassy. It also owns the 

Talleyrand Building and Building D. The following gives information on 

each building.

The most prominent building is the embassy. Figure 6 on page 15 shows the 

front of the building. It occupies about 1.5 acres near the Place de la 

Concord, one of Paris's busiest intersections. The land for the original 

building was purchased in 1928, and construction began in 1931. An 

adjacent building was purchased in 1946, and the two buildings were joined 

together. It has seven floors and about 130,000 square feet. The building has 

virtually no setback on one side as the wall is separated from a public street 

by about a 10-foot sidewalk. The building has about 50 feet of setback from 

the building wall to the front gate. The building adjoins private office space 

in the back. The setback requirement for new embassy buildings is 100 feet. 

Personnel in offices on the east side of the embassy are particularly 

vulnerable to potential blast damage from bombs.1

 As shown in figure 7, 

this side of the embassy is very close to the Rue Boissy d'Anglas. The 

government of France has rejected United States requests to close this 

public street. 

1

In November 2000, the Regional Security Officer recommended that about 80 personnel in 

offices on the east side of the embassy be relocated to mitigate this vulnerability. As of 

March 2001, the State Department was considering this recommendation.
Appendix I

Description of Primary Embassy-Owned 

Office Buildings

Page 27 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Figure 7: Rue Boissy d'Anglas, Public Street on East Side of the Embassy

Note: The embassy is in left foreground.

Source: GAO.

The Talleyrand Building is located on a corner of the Place de la Concorde. 

It houses the consular section and other offices. The building has four 

floors and about 61,000 square feet, including several large reception rooms 

that have historical significance and cannot be used as offices. The United 

States acquired the building after World War II and used it to administer the 

Marshall Plan to assist Europe's postwar recovery. In 1980, the government 

of France designated the building an historic monument. The building has 

virtually no setback on three sides, as its walls are separated from the 

street by a sidewalk of 10 feet or less. It is therefore very vulnerable to 

terrorists. 

The U.S. government owns another office building, called Building D, about 

a mile from the embassy. The building has nine floors and about 56,000 

square feet. It currently houses State's Financial Service Center and other 
Appendix I

Description of Primary Embassy-Owned 

Office Buildings

Page 28 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

government agencies. In 2000, the U.S. Ambassador proposed selling this 

building, estimated to be worth over $40 million, as part of a plan to 

improve security and reduce overall U.S. government real estate holdings 

in Paris. State, however, decided to retain and renovate this building. The 

building is located behind other buildings that face onto the street and is 

therefore less vulnerable to terrorist bombs from that direction. However, 

the building has less than a 100-foot setback in the rear and adjoins private 

buildings on two sides.
Page 29 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State ApendxiI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in the report 

text appear at the end of this 

appendix.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 30 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

See comment 5.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 31 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

See comment 6.

See comment 7.

See comment 8.

See comment 9.

See comment 10.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 32 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

See comment 11.

See comment 12.

See comment 13.

See comment 14.

See comment 15.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 33 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

GAO’s Comments The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter 

dated March 27, 2001.

1. Our report acknowledges the setback problems of the office buildings in 

Paris. However, sale of the parking lot would not affect these problems, as 

the parking lot is about 500 feet from the main embassy building. 

Furthermore, the corner of the parking lot is more than 160 feet from the 

nearest corner of the ambassador’s residence, which is more than three 

times the 50-foot setback standard for new ambassadorial residences. 

Using setback as a security rationale for retaining the parking lot obscures 

the primary security benefit afforded by the parking lot (i.e., it provides 

secure parking for official vehicles). If the parking lot could be sold for $10 

million, and alternative secure parking for official vehicles could be 

obtained for considerably less, the difference could be used to meet 

security and other facility needs in Paris or elsewhere. 

2. Our report emphasizes that the parking lot provides a secure, guarded 

area to park official vehicles and that this is by far the most important 

security benefit afforded by the property. 

3. The Bureau of Diplomatic Security opposes sale of the property because 

of the additional security buffer or setback it provides for the residence, 

the secure parking it provides for embassy vehicles, and the utility it has as 

a motorcade staging area for high-level visits to Paris. Our report addressed 

each of these security factors. We agree that the parking lot provides 

important security for official vehicles. However, there are potential 

alternative parking arrangements that should be examined, such as an 

underground facility on the grounds of the residence that could enhance 

security for official vehicles compared to the current above-ground lot. We 

believe other security afforded by the lot is less essential. 

4. Our report recognizes the security vulnerabilities at various embassy 

buildings in Paris. Although we did not perform a comprehensive security 

review, we believe that there is a need for more security at some facilities 

in Paris. 

5. We emphasize throughout our report and in our conclusions and 

recommendation that consideration of selling the property would be 

appropriate if alternative, cost-effective, and secure parking for official 

vehicles can be obtained. State proposes criteria to be used in assessing 

whether alternative parking for official vehicles would meet or exceed the 
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 34 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

security currently afforded by the parking lot. We believe that full 

exploration of secure parking alternatives, using this or other criteria, 

would be a good step in determining the feasibility of obtaining alternative, 

secure, and cost-effective parking for official vehicles. 

State also indicated that a public lot would not meet its security criteria 

even within a secure, segregated area. However, there are other potential 

alternatives that need to be explored, including building an underground 

facility on secure, U.S. government controlled land. 

6. These are valid concerns to consider in determining if alternative secure 

parking can be obtained. We observed that employees walking to and from 

the current embassy parking lot could also be vulnerable as they are on a 

public street with cars parked along one side. Only through serious 

consideration of potential parking alternatives and ways of mitigating risks 

will State be able to determine and weigh the advantages and 

disadvantages of various alternatives. 

7. Our draft report indicated that there is a threat to U.S. government 

personnel and property in Paris. We have clarified the report to explain that 

although the threat to U.S. personnel and property in Paris has not been 

particularly high in the past, post personnel have not been immune to 

terrorist activity. We also added to the report that there were three attacks 

directed against U.S. personnel in the early 1980s, including the 

assassination of a U.S. government official in 1982. 

8. We agree that the $1.5 million cost estimate for an underground parking 

facility is a rough estimate. That is why we think it would be useful for 

State to explore this and other parking alternatives to determine if they 

would be secure and cost effective. Even if a feasibility study determines 

that building an underground facility would cost much more than the $1.5 

million rough estimate, pursuing this alternative may still make sense if the 

parking lot can be sold for $10 million.

9. Our report correctly describes the parking lot as part of an 

approximately 3.4 acre parcel of land with a 5-story building purchased in 

1948, which is now separated from the rest of the property by solid walls. 

Past inconsistencies regarding the address, dimensions, and whether the 

lot was a separate property or part of the ambassador’s residence were 

partly a result of incomplete or inaccurate information contained in 

property inventory records of the Office of Foreign Buildings Operations 
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 35 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

and material that the embassy in Paris provided to the Office of the 

Inspector General in 1998. 

10. We have clarified language in the report to better describe the walls 

surrounding the parking lot and the location of adjacent properties. 

11. We did not assess the merits of selling portions of the gardens of the 

ambassador’s residence. However, the parking lot and gardens are both 

part of one parcel of land, and according to the real estate lawyer we spoke 

with, the embassy would be able to sell portions of the gardens along with 

the parking lot. We agree that any consideration of selling portions of the 

gardens would need to take into account access and security issues for the 

ambassador’s residence as well as the potential need of the garden area to 

construct an underground parking facility for the embassy. 

12. State did not indicate its basis for asserting that it is highly unlikely an 

underground facility could be built beneath the gardens of the 

ambassador’s residence that would accommodate the embassy’s large 

trucks. We toured a nearby underground parking facility at the British 

embassy built to accommodate cars and vans. British officials indicated 

that the height of the entry way precluded several of its larger trucks from 

entering and suggested that the United States consider this design issue if it 

plans to construct a similar facility. Parking several large trucks belonging 

to the U.S. embassy in existing spaces at the embassy or Building D may 

also be an option to overcome this concern. Full consideration of the 

underground parking alternative, including the cost of a facility designed to 

accommodate the embassy’s large trucks, is needed to determine if this 

alternative is feasible and cost effective. 

13. Throughout our report, we have stressed the importance of providing 

secure parking for official vehicles. We agree that vehicles parked in an 

unguarded public lot would be at greater risk than vehicles parked in the 

secure parking lot. Our report says that if official “vehicles were parked in 

unprotected areas, such as public lots, terrorists might have greater access 

to these cars.” 

14. To develop a sound basis for deciding the disposition of the property, 

State needs to consider security and cost factors and weigh the 

alternatives. State indicated that it would be willing to study this subject 

further if a decision is made to do so. This is what we recommend. 
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 36 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

15. We believe that our report is consistent with the briefing on our 

preliminary observations that we provided in January 2001 to embassy 

officials at the conclusion of our fieldwork. In our briefing, we emphasized 

that our work did not support some of State’s security rationale for 

retaining the parking lot, such as the argument that the lot was needed to 

achieve setback. However, we agreed that there was a need to provide 

secure parking for official vehicles. We told embassy officials that selling 

the parking lot for $10 million should receive serious consideration if 

alternative, secure parking could be obtained and if State did not need the 

property for the construction of a new embassy building. We subsequently 

determined that State did not need the parking lot to construct a new 

embassy. Based on this additional information, we determined that the 

reasonable course of action for State would be to conduct a formal 

feasibility study that would verify the potential sale price and determine if 

alternative, cost-effective, and secure parking for official vehicles could be 

obtained.
Page 37 GAO-01-477 Decision on Embassy Parking Lot

Appendix III

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements ApendxiI

GAO Contact John Brummet (202) 512-5260

Staff 

Acknowledgements

In addition to the contact named above, Ed Kennedy and Lynn Cothern 

made key contributions to this report.

(320017) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00