Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-12-06
tanners Back
.LangIeyCIASite
BY GEORGE BEvERIDGE

Regulating q staff recon-
mendation. the National Capital
Regional Planning Council has
Endorsed location Of the giant
new Central Intelligence Agency
headquarters at Langley. Va.
The council, representing each
jurisdiction In the Washington
area, favored the controversial
Langley site by O 5-to-3 vote.
with two members abstaining.
Then the planners unanimous
ly urged the CHA to ask Congress
to pay for a number Of proposed
highway improvements beyond
those already committed - To
serve the Potomac River area
near Langley.
The council action win be
transmitted tomorrow to o spe-
cial National Capital Planning
Commission committee, which,
in turn, viii report to the full
planning commission on Decem-
Der is. The commission also will
express its views on the Langley
site--strongly favored by CHA
Director Allen Dulles. CHA must
consider the planners advice.
but need not abide by it.
Wehrly Hits CHA
Yesterdays council session was
enlivened by:
i. A charge from Council
Chairman Max Wehrly Of Ar
lington that CHA officials con-
tacted council members in an
attempt to line UP votes before
the meeting and to "play juris-
dictions against each other" CHA
officials denied any such intent,
2. Council Director Paul c.
Watts strongly critical analysis
|of a CHA consultant's report
which favored the Langley site.
Mr.. Watt questioned the ade-
quacy Of public improvements
the consultants listed and con-
cluded that Langley "does not
fulfill" policies the council had
set up for the areas development
In the split vote that followed,
Langley ives Endorsed by:
John Graham, jr., Falls
Church, Va; Assistant District
Engineer Commissioner Thomas
". Hunter: John w. Brookfield,
Fairfax County, Va; William
Cox, Loudoun County, Va, and
Donald E. Gingery, Montgomery
County, Md.
Opposing were Frederick Gut
helm. Upper Montgomery Coun-
ty; Herbert w. Wells. Prince
Georges County, Md. and Her.
bert Reichelt. representing out
Lying Prince Georges areas.
Objections Specified
Not voting were Mr.. Wehrly,
las chairman and John A. Remon,
District member. Mr.. Remon alb
stained because he Is a member
Iof the Planning Commission
committee to take up the matter
later.
Mr.. Watt, in lengthy staff
report. made two major points in
his objection to the Langley site.
One was that the site does not
meet a set Of criteria set up by
the council on May 4 for a CHA
location. The criteria included
currently available roads and
utilities and agreement with es-
Itablished land use and develop
lment policies for each area. CHA
officials contend they have COM
Imitments that the needed facili-
ties will be available by the time
the CHA center is completed.
Mr.. Watts other main point
was that the road, sewer and
water facilities cited by the CHA
generally deal only with CHA
needs and ignore Widespread pri-
Ivate development Mr.. Watt feels
would follow the CHA.
L. X. White, deputy CHA di-
rector. denied Mr.. Wehrly's
charge that his agency had tried
to line up votes for Langley. He
said the CHA had called each
member but only to offer to an
swer any questions about the
consultants' report
The planning commission is
expected to split on the same
basic issue as the regional plan
ners-impact of the CHA on the
rural Langley area.
Opponents argue that inevi-
table expansion will break down
De areas character, and require
facilities that aren't available.