Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon and welcome to the open session portion of the National Capital Planning Commission's July 10th, 2025 meeting. My name is Will Scharf. I am the new chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission. I was appointed by President Trump last night. deeply honored by the trust he's placed in me, given the importance of this commission. And I'm looking forward to getting to work. I'd also like to start by just thanking the professional staff here and the other commissioners for the warm welcome they've extended to me since I got here this morning. I'm really looking forward to working with the commission and with the professional staff here as we do the important work with which this commission is charged. And with that, Madam Secretary, would you like to take the roll call?

Yes, Commissioner Cozart? Here. Commissioner Schaefer?

Here.

Commissioner Stidham?

Here.

Commissioner Argo?

Here.

Commissioner Levenbach?

Here.

Chair Scharf?

Here.

Commissioner Blair?

Here.

Commissioner Tunstall-Williams?

Here. Commissioner Dixon?

Here.

Commissioner Cash?

Present.

Commissioner McGowan?

Present.

Marcella Costa, Executive Director, and Diane Sullivan, Director of the Current Planning Division, are also in the meeting.

Madam Secretary, is there a quorum present?

Yes, there is.

Noting the presence of a quorum, I'd like to call this meeting to order. One note, today's meeting is live streamed and will be available in a few days as a video on the NCPC's website. And if there is no objection, the agenda as posted is adopted as the order of business today. Pledge of allegiance, I believe. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty We have four new commissioners here today. As I said at the outset, my name is Will Scharf. I was appointed by the president both as a commissioner and then designated as chair last night. I also have the distinct honor of serving as an assistant to President Trump and the current White House staff secretary. I've previously been a lawyer in private practice, a federal prosecutor at the Department of Justice. I also served as policy director to the governor of Missouri, in which capacity I worked extensively on economic development, tax credit issues, and related permitting and planning issues, which is, I guess, my most relevant experience for the purposes of this commission. If you'd indulge me just to give a brief further introduction, I mean it when I say that it is truly a tremendous honor to be joining a commission with the storied history of the National Capital Planning Commission. This is a commission with a history dating back a century. charged with a very essential purpose. Washington, D.C., and indeed the broader capital region, this is not just a city. Washington, D.C., in my view, is how America holds itself out to the world. It is a symbol, a symbol comprised of many lesser symbols, I suppose, of our country itself. And I think the beauty, the organization, and indeed the planning of this great city and the broader region in which we're currently serving So there's a very important symbolic purpose for the entire nation. And that's why I think the work that NCPC does is so vitally important. We're not just planning a city for the good of its residents. I believe that we're planning a region for the good of the country and in full view of the entire world. The President shares this view. The President has spoken extensively about the need to beautify Washington, D.C., to turn this city into a shining beacon unto the world. He wants this city and this region to really show the world what America can be at its best, and I think the fact that he's charged me with serving in this capacity I'm deeply honored that he's shown the faith in me to discharge the duties that I've been given in this commission. The president has signed a number of executive orders on this basket of issues. He obviously signed an executive order in both his first administration that we also signed on day one of this administration with respect to his views as to the appropriate sorts of architecture for public buildings, classical architecture in particular. He also signed an executive order and has formed a commission looking at issues relating to the beautification and safety of Washington DC as a whole. And I know that those are issues that he holds particularly dear. As a result of all that, my intention is to be an active and engaged chairman. As I said before, I'm very excited to have the opportunity to work with the professional staff here as we go about the business of this commission. And I think that it is important to note that there are some major construction projects that have come under great scrutiny in recent months. And those are things that we're going to have to work through as a commission together. There are some major projects on the agenda for today. There are major projects that I know are going to be coming up in the coming months. And there are also issues with past projects that have unfortunately come under scrutiny, both in public eye and the media, and also in Congress. I think most notably there, The Federal Reserve's ongoing construction project has come under intense scrutiny. There are reports, obviously, relating to the opulence of the project, which is not necessarily germane to the work of this commission. But more pressingly for our purposes, there have been reports of serious deviations from approved plans. I think with a commission like this, it's extremely important, obviously, to get the planning right on the front end, but it's also equally important to ensure that when plans are duly approved, that construction proceeds according to plan. And working with commission staff here, I'm excited to have the opportunity in the coming months to look at the inventory of ongoing construction projects and ensuring that those construction projects are in fact abiding by the planning and the permitting that's gone through this commission in the past. We do have three other new commissioners here today, as well as myself. James Blair, a colleague of mine from the White House, is here. The president appointed him yesterday as well. James, would you like to introduce yourself?

Sure. I appreciate it. I'm also honored to be here and to be appointed by the president. I'm an assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff in the White House. Obviously, as my colleague, the chair, already referenced, this is a very important mission to the president. And as a builder by trade, he has a particular interest in design, planning, construction and all of those things. He really wants to leave D.C. better than he found it during this term and be a good partner. To the city, as I was mentioning to my colleague, the commissioner over here, we have a good relationship with the mayor and her office and seek as much opportunity to collaborate to improve the city as we can. In fact, I spoke to her as recently as yesterday. And we look forward to using this commission to enhance the work that we've already begun as a federal administration and a city administration from the design planning side. Honored to be here. Look forward to it. And certainly we'll do our best to faithfully discharge the duties of this commission.

Thank you, James. Stuart Levenbach also joins us. He currently serves at the Office of Management and Budget. Stuart, would you like to introduce yourself?

Sure. I do want to thank the chair for your remarks. I thank the president for the opportunity to serve in this capacity. So I've been living in Gaithersburg, Maryland for almost 20 years now, commuting down to D.C. and working out of federal buildings. Much of that time, I was directly involved in the Office of Management and Budget in a across the country in terms of the budgeting of them and also a lot of the policies around environmental permitting during time in the Council of Environmental Quality and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. So I'm looking forward to hopefully bringing some of that background to the discussion here at the commission and just working together to make sure the federal buildings in particular are designed appropriately for the region.

Lastly, Paul Schaefer is a commissioner who joins us from the Department of Defense. Paul is currently the Director of the Facility Services Directorate, Washington Headquarters Service of the Department of Defense. Paul, would you like to introduce yourself?

Sure. Thank you, sir. So background on me, I guess. I've been serving in the Department of Defense for over 32 years as a civil servant. Background civil engineering in terms of master planning and engineering design and construction. In recent years, it's been more along the line of installation management support and supporting the Army and Missile Defense Agency and looking after their facilities and installations. absolutely honored to be representing secretary Hex on this commission and look forward to supporting the commission and, and the great, great, uh, area of the national capital region.

And I see that you're a native of New Orleans. I sure am. A city near and dear to my heart and one that could certainly use some planning. So maybe that's something for the future. With that, I don't have anything further for my report today. I look forward to continuing to work with commission staff in future meetings where hopefully I'll have more to report But with that, agenda item number three is the report of our executive director, Marcel Acosta. Marcel, would you like to proceed?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the staff, I would like to welcome our new commissioners to the National Capital Planning Commission. So feel free to call on us if you have any questions. And we certainly want to further the mission that the chair had articulated in terms of making this the most beautiful capital city possible. So we look forward to helping you achieve that goal. We are pleased to announce the public release of the Monumental Core Streetscape Guide and Construction Manual. Its goal is to achieve coherent, cohesive capital city streetscapes, linking the Monumental Core with Washington's neighborhoods to create a beautiful, welcoming environment for visitors, workers, and residents. So many thanks to the Monumental Core Interagency Working Group. WHICH INCLUDES BOTH FEDERAL AND DISTRICT STAKEHOLDER AGENCIES FOR GUIDING THIS EFFORT. I'D LIKE TO EXTEND MY GRATITUDE TO BETH MILLER, BEN TURPID, JEFF JAMAWAT AND KAREN SHERHOLD FOR THE OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS. THE GUIDELINES ARE AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD ON OUR WEBSITE. YOU HAVE MY FULL REPORT IN YOUR PACKET AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

NEW SPEAKER DO ANY COMMISSIONERS, I GUESS ONLINE FIRST, DO ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR ACOSTA? Hearing none, do any commissioners present have any questions for Director Acosta? Seeing none, thank you so much, Marcel. Agenda item number four is a legislative update. Madam Secretary, would you like to proceed with that?

Yes, I don't have any specific items to update the commission on this month on the legislative update, but I am happy to answer any questions about pending legislation if commissioners have any.

Do any commissioners joining us online have any questions for our secretary? Hearing none, do any commissioners present have any questions about the legislative update? Seemed like a pretty straightforward legislative update to me. Thank you, Megan. Agenda item number five is the consent calendar. There are four items on this month's consent calendar. The first consent calendar item is to approve preliminary and final site and building plans for the St. Elizabeth's West Campus antenna installation. The second is to approve comments to the Mayor on the District of Columbia Capital Improvement Plan for fiscal years 2026 through 2031. The third item is to approve comments on the Humphreys Engineer Center Draft Master Plan. And the final consent calendar item is to approve preliminary and final site development plans for the Pentagon West End Security Fence. Are there any questions or discussions of these consent or questions or discussion items on these consent calendar matters for many of the commissioners here with us online?

Mr. Chairman, I would move that we adopt the consent calendar.

Thank you, sir. Is there a second?

Second.

Madam Secretary, would you like to call the vote?

Yes, the motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Cozart?

Yes.

Commissioner Schaefer?

Yes.

Commissioner Stidham?

Yes.

Commissioner Argo? Yes. Commissioner Levenbach?

Abstain.

Chair Scharf?

Abstain.

Commissioner Blair?

Abstain.

Commissioner Tunstall-Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes.

Commissioner McGowan? Abstain. Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. The motion has carried. I would note, just for the record, while I have great confidence in the work performed by our staff here, I, being appointed only last night, I did not have a large amount of time to review the items that we're voting on today. And as a result, I'm abstaining, but I wouldn't want anybody to think that that is a reflection of my views, the work that the staff does here at NCPC. We have five further items on the open session calendar for today, four applications, and then one informational presentation. Can we proceed with that now?

Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Commission. The National Park Service, in coordination with the District of Columbia Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development and the District of Columbia Office of Planning, has submitted a revised concept master plan for Poplar Point in Washington, D.C. for commission review and comment. Overall, staff is pleased with the updated concept and recommends the commission approve the comments in the executive director's report and that I will review in this presentation. Today we are looking at the concept master plan level, where the Commission should be focused on issues such as consistency with NCPC's comprehensive plan and other policies, appropriateness of the concept for the site, and any particularly unique and or complex issues. The National Park Service initiated this master plan process in February of 2025, and the Commission provided comments on the conceptual master plan alternatives in April. This review is not an approval, as the Commission's comments are intended to provide feedback to the applicant and identify elements of the design to consider as the applicant refines the master plan. As noted here, there will be additional opportunities to provide public input into the plan. Poplar Point is located along the eastern edge of the Anacostia River in Ward 8. It is adjacent to historic Anacostia and is bordered by the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge to the west, the Anacostia River to the north, Anacostia Park to the east, and the Bridge District, the Anacostia Metro Rail Station, and I-295 to the south. The purpose of this master plan is to meet the requirements of the Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property Act of 2006, otherwise referred to as the D.C. Lands Act. This master plan is required in order to transfer the land to allow for the future redevelopment of Poplar Point. The D.C. Lands Act specifically requires a minimum of 70 acres of land is set aside for park purposes, the relocation of existing facilities, identification of at least two sites within the parkland for future commemoration that would be conveyed back to the National Park Service in the future, and consistency with the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Framework Plan to the greatest extent practicable. Poplar Point is in close proximity to several historic areas and sites on both sides of the Anacostia River. The National Park Service initiated Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the site on January 27, 2025. The area of potential effect is shown in yellow and includes several important historic properties that will be evaluated as part of the 106 process. Currently, the site has approximately 5.7 acres of scattered pockets of non-tidal wetlands and a high water table. There are also protected species identified on the site, including the northern long-eared bat, the tricolored bat, and the monarch butterfly. The site is relatively flat, with elevations at zero feet along the shoreline up to 31 feet at the eastern end adjacent to the 11th Street Bridge Park, making it extremely vulnerable to flooding. The site contains extensive infrastructure, including the WMATA Metro Tunnel for the Green Line, the Anacostia River Tunnel, the Stickfoot Branch Storm Drain, and a variety of other utilities. In addition, there are three buildings on the site, including the National Park Service National Capital Parks East Headquarters, the U.S. Park Police Anacostia Operations Facility, and the U.S. Park Police Anacostia Aviation Facility. All three of these facilities are required to be relocated as part of the Land Transfer and Master Plan. The site is accessible from several locations, including the traffic oval at the Frederick Douglas Memorial Bridge, Howard Avenue Southeast, and the Anacostia Metro Station. The site falls almost completely within the 100- and 500-year floodplains. The Commission previously commented that this site presented a unique opportunity to connect with the shoreline and model natural flood resiliency in addition to creating a new neighborhood amenity. The applicant has identified vistas of the U.S. Capitol and Washington Monument as characteristics of the site, and the Commission previously encouraged the applicant to consider a plan that protects as many of these important views as feasible. The planning principles for the Master Plan are based on an analysis of existing conditions and incorporating ideas from previous planning efforts, including the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Framework Plan. Staff supports the project goals at Poplar Point to expand the existing wetland, celebrate the point, rediscover the shoreline, build upon adjacent projects, focus on metro rail access, and connect with the Anacostia community. The applicant has held several virtual and in-person meetings with the public to get feedback on the master plan. Additional opportunities for public engagement will be available as the master plan review continues. During the April meeting, the Commission provided comments on the three previously proposed alternatives. The Commission comments focused on preservation of wetlands, open space, connectivity and access, the view corridors, as well as the appropriate location for development and the anchor use. The Commission did not select a preferred alternative at that time. Since the April meeting, the applicant has worked with stakeholders and positively translated the Commission's comments into this preferred alternative land use plan. The preferred plan proposes open space, including expanded wetlands along the Anacostia Riverfront, relocating the vehicular roadway south with the development. The plan includes cultural and open space uses in the salmon color at the point instead of development. The development areas, shown as cream on the map, are connected adjacent to the existing development, the metro station, and I-295. The plan includes multiple transportation connections, including two pedestrian-only access points shown in yellow. As such, staff commends the applicant for developing a preferred alternative that successfully responds to the Commission's previous comments and supports the intent to improve and develop Poplar Point into a community amenity by providing a publicly accessible waterfront park with cultural, economic, and recreational attractions and activities, spurring revitalization efforts east of the river by providing a mix of residential, retail, and office uses around the Anacostia Metrorail Station, and improving access to and expanding the recreational amenities within Southern Anacostia Park. The preferred plan features civic and cultural uses at the point, as noted. This includes a possible museum location that would be in alignment with the U.S. Capitol viewshed and includes a festival area for community gatherings or events. The riverfront park area would extend Anacostia Park to connect with the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge Oval with a consistent minimum 250-foot setback from the water to the development. That could include a variety of waterfront recreation activities. The preferred plan includes approximately seven acres of wetlands and habitat, including the daylighting of stickfoot branch. Within the wetlands, there could be education and recreation opportunities, including paths and boardwalks that could provide access to the wetlands and interpretation of ecological issues. As such, staff supports the changes to open space, the wetlands, and the point in the preferred alternative as outlined in the executive director's report. The preferred alternative includes development at the site that connects from the Frederick Douglas Bridge Oval near the Bridge District and the Anacostia Metrorail Station and along I-295. The new development is anticipated to be approximately 130 feet in height closest to the Metrorail Station and step down as blocks approach the river. The proposed anchor use would occupy a 15-acre parcel near the Metrorail Station. If it is determined that the anchor use is not possible, the proposed anchor tenant parcel would be reconfigured and incorporated into the mixed-use development grid of parcels and roadways. As such, staff supports the changes to the location and design of development in the preferred alternative as outlined in the Executive Director's report. The preferred plan protects views to and from the U.S. Capitol, the Washington Monument, and Cedar Hill, the Frederick Douglass home. The plan especially enhances the prominence of the New Jersey Avenue view corridor that extends from the U.S. Capitol to the Poplar Point site. As such, staff supports that the plan protects views of the U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument, which are important view sheds that add to the uniqueness of this site. The major change to the transportation plan for the site is the relocation of Anacostia Drive away from the waterfront and to the south as a primary spine for development and access through the site. It will connect from the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge East Oval and extend to the existing Anacostia Drive at the northeast corner of the site. The Riverwalk Trail will instead accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic only. The plan also includes several connections to the surrounding neighborhoods, including two new pedestrian-only connections. As such, staff supports maximizing vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, particularly from historic Anacostia, to ensure the site is well-connected to the surrounding neighborhoods. The overall approach toward flood resilience at Poplar Point is one of living with water. The wetlands and lower elevation areas would connect with the Anacostia River and accommodate future flooding. The rest of the site would consist of gentle terraces to further accommodate flood water and to raise the elevation of development to approximately 12.5 feet, which is above the estimated flood level of 10.5 feet above mean sea level. Similar to other waterfront areas in Washington, parking structures would be utilized to raise the elevation of development. The master plan process will include further coordination with Joint Base Anacostia Bowling regarding potential flood issues as well. As such, staff supports that the plan indicates how the overall flood mitigation approach will address the risk of flooding and any negative impacts to planned development consisting of terraces to further accommodate floodwater and to raise the elevation of development. In conclusion, staff commends the applicant for developing a preferred alternative that successfully responds to the commission's previous comments. As the applicant continues in the master plan process, staff requests the environmental assessment evaluate transportation impacts, including vehicular traffic, and how pedestrian and bicycle users will be safely accommodated and encourages the applicant to continue coordination and outreach with the community in the development of the master plan, including identifying opportunities for interpretation of the site's history and other uses that would support local needs. In conclusion, staff again commends the applicant and recommends the commission approves the comments in the executive director's report. This concludes my presentation. This concludes my presentation. I have read the recommendations and included them here for your reference. Whit Smith from the Deputy Mayor's Office for Planning and Economic Development is here to say a few words. And the rest of the design team is available as well to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

On behalf of the Poplar Point team, we would like to thank the Commission and staff for helping us evaluate and refine the three initial test alternatives into a single preferred alternative for Poplar Point. To be specific regarding terminology, the revised concept master plan that was reviewed today is the preferred alternative for the corresponding environmental assessment process for Poplar Point. Please note that the EA alternative is a generalized land use plan and delineates open space areas and physical development areas at the parcel level. It also addresses views and vistas, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, and other issues. Subsequent to the EA process, we will undertake a more detailed master plan process with the DC Office of Planning. The master plan will address park planning and urban design issues at the site and building level. The master plan will also include design guidelines and recommendations for zoning and the property. Again, thank you for your thoughtful review and helpful recommendations.

Thank you, Whit. Do any commissioners online have any questions for our two speakers?

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Please proceed, Commissioner.

Commissioner Dixon, these are comments. First of all, I appreciate the work that's being done by the staff. I have been in touch with them a lot on this issue because my neighborhood Anacostia River East is this park's neighborhood. I've been in that area all my life and I live two blocks from the Anacostia River area. and played there as a child. Most people on the commission know this. The new commissioners may find this interesting, maybe. I do have a few things I would like to share. I'd like to ask whether or not there can be a replacement of the East of the River comment words for Anacostia River East. East of the River is a non-locator. I'm trying to encourage folks to recognize that this area is Anacostia River East, not east of a river. Could be a Congo River or wherever. It's not clear. The other thing I want to stress, which I've spoken to the planning office about, which is probably important for future work, is that we try to bring in the Native American theme into the further development of this park. Since this is the area that the Native Americans who lived in this community, this is where they all lived, on the Anacostia River east side, Boulding Air Force Base, which is now Joint Base Anacostia-Boulding, was where the main location for their commercial area for selling of pelts and other things that they would sell along the Potomac-Chesapeake Bay River. So it's a very important Native American. I'm hoping that there'll be some kind of signage. And when they do some of the recreational facilities, et cetera, that they will have something that can be symbolic of the Native Americans who were there last. I've even asked that there may be a lacrosse field that could be multipurposed because lacrosse is the Native American sport. Again, I want to thank you all for what you've done. And I'm going to stay tuned because this is a very important area for me in Anacostia River East. So thank you very much. And by the way, I want to welcome the new commissioners and our new chair. It's a very fascinating commission to be on because we do have a chance to see an impact on the future beauty and functionality of our city. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Do any of our other commissioners who are with us online have any questions or comments? Hearing none, I actually have just a couple questions. I appreciated the inclusion of the floodplain charts, and I was interested by your proposed, I guess, sort of flood mediation measures. Do you know when the last time Poplar Point had a significant flooding event was? And if so, do you know how high the waters got?

I actually don't. I mean, oh.

I didn't mean to put you on the spot. It's okay. In a 100-year floodplain, it can either be something that happens. It's never sort of actually just 100 years. I was just curious what the actual risk was to the site.

I would assume, given the location in the floodplain and the high water table, that it is generally wet most of the time.

Fair. Is that a fair assessment, Tammy?

Yeah. I mean, it's pretty low there.

Okay.

So we often see a lot of flooding and there's a set of floodgates that are routinely put into place that protect the facilities that are currently located there.

Gotcha. I would note that I'm the at-large member from the state of Missouri. So to the extent I'm less familiar with the local geography, I do apologize. The other question I had was one of the charts included in the meeting materials that there's a contaminated zone within the existing site. I didn't see anything about the nature of that contamination. Is that sort of a risk to the ongoing redevelopment or what's sort of going on there?

It should not be a risk, but I will actually let Tammy, Commissioner Stidham, answer that. Sorry.

No, that's okay. So Poplar Point has been a site of a lot of a variety of uses over the time. It was a naval receiving station for some time. There was laundry service with a big laundry service there, as well as greenhouse uses. And those uses over the years have contaminated the site, which has been known for some time. the park service in coordination with the district has been investigating the site. We are doing a remedial investigation and followed by a feasibility study that will have a proposed plan. And actually this plan helps in the remediation of the site because knowing the future use is really key in a cleanup so that you are doing the cleanup to whatever that future use is going to be so that they play hand in hand and it will not be a risk as those t-processes are occurring in dental you scared me a little bit with laundry because that's usually peak and teak which can be terrible but um that's very helpful i appreciate it man

Are there any other questions or comments from commissioners who are present?

I have one question. Yes, ma'am. And I may have missed it. Have you guys identified what the anchor use is planned to be, or are you targeting anything in particular, just out of curiosity? Yeah.

Yeah, sure. So we have obviously the environmental assessment process that we've been laser focused on to initiate the conveyance. Separately, we had a request for expressions of interest for an anchor use at the site. We've conducted that. We have found an anchor that we feel is compatible. But once the environmental assessment is complete, we'll turn back to evaluating that use.

So nothing confirmed yet? Nothing. Perfect. Thank you.

I have one question. So I saw there's some wetlands being created in the area. Is that part of a regulatory requirement for mitigation? Or is that another reason?

Well, much of the wetlands already exist. I think it's a 5.7 acres of wetlands are already on the site. And the plan does expand the amount of wetlands on the site. And I think part of the plan is to improve those wetlands by daylighting the stickfoot branch tunnel into the wetlands so that it further improves the quality of those wetlands.

Any further questions from commissioners present? Thank you so much, Jamie and Whit for your presentations. Speaking personally, thank you for the information provided. I look forward to continuing to work with you guys on this project. Is there a motion to approve the comments on the revised concept master plan for Poplar Point? So moved. Is there a second?

Second. I second.

Oh, I think I reversed the order. We should have done, or I guess I'll now open it up to the commission for discussion. I'll start the deliberations with Commissioner Cozart.

Good afternoon and welcome.

Sorry.

No problem. So really appreciate the work of the staff on this. Just to underscore, it was in the staff report and in the presentation, this is a really important project for the district. In many ways, this is kind of a final piece of the Anacostia waterfront. initiative, which we as the district have worked with the federal government on for the last 15 plus years, have realized significant parts of it and provided access not just for DC residents, but for the millions of visitors that we have to the nation's capital to be able to access the waterfront. And this is a piece that was envisioned as part of that Anacostia waterfront initiative. to be revitalized and have this mix of natural and open spaces, monumental places, places for recreation and also places for living as well. And so we're really excited about that and certainly have, in anticipation of that, the mayor has made investments in the Frederick Douglass Bridge, which is a remarkable piece of infrastructure. bordering this area and certainly excited about the advances in the 11th Street Bridge Park as well, as well as investments in historic Anacostia surrounding neighborhoods. So very excited about moving this forward and appreciate the work of the staff and comments from commissioners to strengthen it and certainly the partnership with the National Park Service around this as well.

Thank you, Commissioner Cozart. Commissioner Schaefer?

Can't say it any better, honestly. So, no, this is a great-looking plan. I look forward to seeing it progress. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Stidham?

I guess to build off of Commissioner Cozart, this is an important project for the National Park Service. We've been partnering with the district, and it's been going extremely well. It's a long time coming, so to get this far is really great, and I can't wait until we pull it over the finish line. So that's really it.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo?

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Wonderful. It's working. Appreciate very much the work that's been done on this. This is an exciting project. And to see this, to see how far we've come on the conceptual to the development of these plans, which we hope you'll all support. It's a great time. This is an important project in a number of reasons that I don't need to, for a number of reasons I don't need to enumerate. Thank you. Thanks so much for taking it this far, all you guys who worked on it.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Levenbach?

It was a formative presentation. Thank you very much. I have no comments at this time.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Blair? No comments. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Tunstall-Williams?

Yes. Thank you for the presentation, and it's exciting to see the evolution of the preferred alternative. I really especially appreciate the movement of the road and returning the waterfront to the pedestrian, bicycle sort of recreation use, as well as the introduction of additional memorial and commemoration sites that are sorely needed for the city, but giving it a very prominence approach, how you look at it, how you view it from the other side of the river. And then also one of the things that we were very concerned about in the first presentation was the connection of connecting this part of Anacostia River East, Commissioner Dixon, across 295 back to the rest of Anacostia. And I think the introduction of the pedestrian bridges and some of those will be really important to allowing the neighborhood to enjoy this part of the site, as well as the sort of smart approaches to water management and locating the built infrastructure out of that and then allowing the water management to be an amenity that can be enjoyed when people are recreating on the site. So very nice plan. I look forward to seeing it come to fruition.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon?

Yeah, I said most of what I wanted to say, but I would add that I've been a long time waiting. I played golf on this space as a kid. The first golf course I played on. Now the course is gone, but it's gone through a lot of changes. And I'm really hopeful that I'll be able to see all this developed. And we put a lot of effort in this when I chaired the Anacostia Coordinating Council. We actually recommended the movement of the road. and a lot of other things that are being suggested. So it's really, really good to see it come forward. And again, thank you. And I would like to ask one question. Where are the entry points that they have agreed to in this plan? I thought one was going to be at Shannon Place, Chicago Street. And could you share with me where those two, can they answer that for me, Mr. Chairman?

Jamie, do you?

So, I mean, I have not memorized the street names, but I can say that all the available ways to access the site have been included in the preferred plan, which was the commission encouraged the applicant to maximize those connections. So the availability of a connection has been incorporated into the plan.

Very good. Thank you for that, Albert. And be clear later. Thank you.

Commissioner Dixon, you have us all at a disadvantage with your local knowledge there. So Commissioner Cash.

No, thanks. I just want to thank the team for their responsiveness to a lot of our comments coming for us the last few times. Really appreciate maximizing all those connections to the site. And I really appreciate kind of opening up the waterfront to the more pedestrian uses. So thanks for all the progress here and I look forward to it.

Thank you, Commissioner. And lastly, Commissioner McGowan.

I have no further comments, but thank you for the presentation.

Thank you. Thank you to the National Park Service and to the district for all of your work and for responding to the commission's prior inquiries. I think that was an extremely informative presentation. And I appreciate the time that you've obviously taken to keep us in the loop and to keep the project rolling forward. Are there any further comments or questions before we move forward? Hearing or seeing none, can the Secretary please confirm the motion in the second and take the vote by roll call?

Yes, the motion was made by Commissioner Stidham and seconded by Commissioner Dixon. Commissioner Cozart?

Yes.

Commissioner Schaefer?

Yes.

Commissioner Stidham?

Yes.

Commissioner Argo? Yes. Commissioner Levenbach?

Yes.

Chair Sharp?

Abstain.

Commissioner Blair?

Abstain.

Commissioner Tunstall-Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes.

Commissioner McGowan? Abstain. Thank you. The motion carries.

Thank you. With that motion carrying, our next item on the agenda is agenda item 6B, which is a request to approve final site and building plans for the National Air and Space Museum Construct Integrated Bezos Learning Center. And I believe we have Stephanie Free with us.

Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Scharf and commissioners. The Smithsonian Institution submitted final site and building plans for the Construct Integrated Basis Learning Center, or BLC, which is a proposed addition to the east end of the National Air and Space Museum, or NASM, on the National Mall, which staff is recommending approval of. For the final review stage, the Commission is focused on topics such as if the comments provided during the preliminary review were adequately addressed, signage and lighting details, and ensuring confidence that the plans will not substantially change. The Commission has been involved in shaping this project for more than three years. Following an initial information presentation in March 2022, the Commission approved the comments on concept plans in May 2024 and the preliminary plans in December 2024. And as I mentioned, today we are reviewing the final site and building plans. The project anticipates commencing construction later this year and opening mid-2027. In its last review, the Commission approved the BLC's preliminary site and building plans with comments related to further study of the building's upper volume terminus on the south facade, the lighting approach and development of a physical mock-up, open space programming and shade, refinement to the stormwater management and planting plans, and wayfinding and circulation. Overall, staff finds the applicant has addressed the Commission's preliminary plan comments, and additional design refinements made in the final site and building plans are a typical progression expected in the design development phase, which I will cover in this presentation. But before I dive into the updates, I'll first provide a brief overview of the project. As I mentioned, the BLC will be an addition to the east end of the National Air and Space Museum on the National Mall. It is bound by Jefferson Drive to the north, 4th Street to the east, and Independence Avenue to the south. NASM's 1988 East End restaurant addition was demolished in 2022, and the remaining two and a half acre site will be the home to the integrated Bezos Learning Center addition. The proposed BLC is a three-story, approximately 80,000 square foot addition. The first level will contain a 600 to 700 seat restaurant with BLC programming on levels two and three. The addition will connect to the museum via a new vestibule, provide two new outdoor gathering spaces, and a permanent location for the Phoebe Waterman Haas Observatory. The conceptual party for the BLC edition uses the spiral galaxy as inspiration. The building spiral form is meant to metaphorically place the individual at the core of the galaxy. The Commission previously found that the spiral galaxy design inspiration is a strong thematic element that reflects the BLC's program and NASM's mission and is elegantly expressed in the proposed design. And here we have a look at the illustrative perspective, showing the BLC addition and the larger context of the National Mall and its relationship to NASM, where the museum's solid-to-void pattern is carried through in the addition's form. The BLC addition takes shape as a spiral form, radiating outward and upward towards the National Mall. A solid program bar wraps an inner glass concourse and is lifted above the ground level, revealing a glazed base. In terms of program, the BLC activities will occupy the majority of the top two floors. The ground floor will house the new restaurant and the vestibule connection to NASM. A new group and school entrance to the museum will also be located on the south side of the addition off of Independence Avenue. So in the next part of the presentation, I will focus on the building design and lighting refinements that have occurred since the preliminary review, followed by that of the landscape design. To begin, here we have a summary of the building materials selected, which are largely unchanged from the preliminary review. The upper volume, which wraps the addition south and east sides, is clad with the titanium aluminum panels. This volume sits above a dark glass first floor base. The glass door frames and mullions are proposed as a brown sugar color that relates to the glazing and coloring used at NASM. The BLC's interior glass concourse on the north side will consist of clear glass with bird frit and aluminum accents in the preferred color on the rocks, which is a light gray hue. Here we have some illustrative renderings that demonstrate the BLC addition materials adjacent to NASM. At the preliminary review stage, the Commission found that the materials palette complements the NASM revitalization building materials, but differentiates the BLC as a new addition. During the preliminary review, the Commission also recommended further study of two options for the terminus of the upper curved volume on the south elevation, a straight angle, as seen here on the left, and an obtuse angle, as seen here on the right, noting that the straight angle option relates best to the orthogonal geometry of the museum. As such, the applicant studied this facade with additional renderings of the south elevation within the broader context, including its relationship to NASM as a whole along Independence Avenue. Through consultation, the Section 106 consulting parties stated a preference for the obtuse angle option as it complements NASM's block form with a clear transition point between the two structures and serves as the starting point for the BLC addition spiral form. Overall, staff supports the consulting party's justification for selecting the obtuse angle termination as the preferred option, and finds that in the larger context of NASEM, the BLC addition effectively relates to the museum's facade through other design cues, such as the aluminum panel sizing, fenestration geometry, and material coloring. The applicant has also made significant progress on the building's lighting design to ensure it will respect the lighting hierarchy of memorials, monuments, and important civic buildings and spaces within the monumental core. The facade lighting concept is to provide a dynamic texture of light and shadow on the upper volume created with strategically placed thin tapered aluminum fins that align with the joints in the metal panel facade material. This effect is achieved by locating a linear LED light within the facade and gently up lighting the custom tapered metal fins through a reveal in the joints. This is intended to give the impression of shooting stars, further reinforcing the streaking light pattern and the mission of the Bezos Learning Center. At the preliminary review, the Commission requested further study of the lighting approach to ensure it provides soft illumination, as illustrated in the plans, and respects the surrounding context. In response, the applicant conducted a light level survey that inventoried the lighting brightness levels of five buildings or monuments surrounding the project site, as seen here. The brightness levels on the facades immediately adjacent to the BLC range from 9 to 12 candela per square meter, and as a result, the applicant proposes that the BLC target a maximum brightness of 10 candela per square meter. The design team also built a full-scale mock-up of a portion of the facade to test the lighting conditions of the tapered fin strategy. Staff reviewed the mock-up with the consultant parties last month, and the mock-up is in the NCPC's training room for your in-person review. Staff notes that while there are some limitations to the mock-up, it still provides a useful tool for evaluating the lighting strategy with the building materials. In addition, the lighting product shall be fully dimmable, and the Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement requires the applicant to convene the consulting parties, including NCPC, to review the integral facade lighting after construction is complete to set the lighting level, color temperature, and other lighting details of the project. And overall, staff finds the adjustable nature of the lighting, the results of the light level survey, and the light levels demonstrated by the mock-up indicate the lighting approach is designed to respect the hierarchy of memorials, monuments, and important civic buildings and spaces in the monumental core. During its review of the facade mock-up and lighting study, the applicant found that additional detailing was required for the metal fins to prevent bird nesting. In summary, the total maximum horizontal depth of the tapered fins is reduced from 8 inches to 6 inches, and a tapered wedge will be fabricated on the top side of the fins and finished to match the rest of the facade. The wedge will measure 2 1⁄4 inches at its highest point, which coincides with the widest 6-inch horizontal projection of the fin, and will taper down in height as the length of the fin diminishes. An in-depth site analysis included in the submission materials indicates that the wedge will be imperceivable and have no effect on the appearance of the building facade, as you can see here in the renderings on the left without the wedge and the renderings on the right that include the wedge. So that concludes the review of the updates to the building design and lighting. And in the following slides, I will focus on the progression of the landscape design since the preliminary review. Here's a look at the proposed BLC site plan. The project includes two public open spaces, the Learning Courtyard, which fronts the National Mall, and the Astronomy Park along Independence Avenue and 4th Street. The design of each space is intended to promote visual and spatial continuity between interior and exterior spaces, placing a priority on continuous circulation around the BLC site. At the preliminary review stage, the Commission was supportive of the overall approach to the project's landscape design and materiality. However, the Commission requested additional information about the amount of shade in the Learning Courtyard and Astronomy Park and their programmatic needs to better understand the extent of the proposed paving. In response, the final site and building plans include a diagram that illustrates the amount of BLC hardscape and green spaces are proportional to the existing hardscape and green spaces on the entirety of the NASEM site. And another diagram illustrating that the proposed amount of green space is proportional to the amount of green space on the former restaurant pavilion site, which continues to provide historic context for the BLC through its retention of its perimeter planter walls. In terms of the program, the Learning Courtyard is intended to be a quiet space where visitors may rest and reflect with a variety of seating areas and options. The space in the center is designed as an outdoor room that is defined by sloping benches and mounted planter beds. The larger, more open space plan at the center of the space allows for flexibility in programming, including educator-facilitated outdoor learning. The Learning Courtyard will include a gathering space for BLC programming, offer views of the National Mall, and provide an elevated shaded viewing platform over the loading dock ramp with the potential to accommodate large-scale audiovisual projections on the east wall of NASM. The Astronomy Park will be the permanent home for the Phoebe Waterman Haas Observatory near the intersection of Independence Avenue and Fourth Street. The overall size of the Astronomy Park is determined by the program area, which includes removable educational installations and space for outdoor telescopes, which must remain clear of tree canopy or other obstructions to maintain visibility. In addition to a permanent location for the observatory, Astronomy Park will provide a queuing area for school groups, space for small group facilitation programming and seating, and a visual connection to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial. Overall, staff finds the hardscape areas in the Learning Courtyard and Astronomy Park are designed to accommodate flexible programming. including passive recreation, multiple educational installations and educator facilitated outdoor learning while maintaining adequate circulation around the site. During its last review, several commissioners asked whether the number of pathways that form the spiral geometry in the Learning Courtyard could be reduced. The final submission indicates there are two primary pedestrian routes, the BLC internal site circulation and the extension of the NASM perambulation path. The NASM perambulation path allows visitors to circulate around the entirety of the NASM block, including the BLC, without interruption. Egress from the BLC is also considered in the circulation plan, demonstrating that on the north side, egress is required from the vestibule where the BLC meets NASM. This egress path continues north to accommodate both stair and ramp users and defines the spiral form of the learning courtyard. And as such, staff finds the proposed circulation is intended to extend the path which encompasses the entire perimeter of the nascent block and connect it with the internal BLC site circulation, building entrances, and perimeter streetscapes. As requested, the provided shade study illustrates where shade will occur during the early summer, early spring, and early fall at various points throughout the day. Staff finds that the shade study indicates the building and proposed trees provide opportunities for shade in the learning courtyard and astronomy park seasonally throughout the day, except for the peak summer months when shade is less available from the longer days and high angle of the sun. Therefore, staff encourages the BLC to consider incorporating shade features into outdoor programming of the learning courtyard and astronomy park during the summer months when there is a greater need for respite from the afternoon sun. Regarding the planting plan, the proposal continues to incorporate the NASM revitalization plan planting concept, which is a palette of mostly native perennial and prairie plants, as well as trees that serve to foster biodiversity and support a diverse array of pollinators. The location and selection of plant species for the BLC site will continue the tree palette of the NASM landscape and transition to species selected to highlight themes such as night-blooming plants and prairie landscapes to evoke the broader national landscape where space observatories are numerous and skies are darkest. In response to public comments, the planting plan has been revised to eliminate nearly two dozen plant species that are not native to the National Capital Region. Overall, staff finds the proposed plant palette is not inconsistent with NCPC's Pollinator's Best Practices Resource Guide and incorporates a range of pollinator-supporting plants in a way that balances the BLC's thematic design and ecological function and the existing plant palette to ensure continuity throughout the site. In this final segment of the presentation, I will discuss the proposed wayfinding strategy, which includes building mounted signage at entrance points and rectangular metal panel signs within the planting beds at entrance points on Jefferson Drive, Independence Avenue, and 4th Street. The landscape panel signs are proposed as black metal signs with white pinmented lettering, which contrasts with the granite site walls in existing building signage at Nassim, where the signage characters are engraved into the stone itself, as seen here in this image on the right. While staff supports the panel signage design, it encourages further study of the placement of the signs within the planting beds to achieve a consistent treatment that softens the transition between the base of the signs and the top of the planter walls without obscuring the lettering with plantings. Building signage is located at the BLC entry on the north side of the building, the museum group entrance on the south side of the building, and on the Phoebe Waterman Haas Observatory. Each are pin-mounted lettering with legible cap height and contrast in color for an enhanced readability. And collectively, staff finds a proposed wayfinding strategy, integrate signage at strategic points on the building and within the landscape to provide a clear distinction between the VLC and NASM, and to guide visitors to the appropriate destination. And the building mounted signage and the metal signs with pin mounted letterings in the landscape beds are sympathetic to the existing campus wide signage plan. So that concludes my presentation. The executive director's recommendations have been incorporated into my presentation. So while I will not repeat them here, I would also like to note that as part of the recommendations, the applicant is actively coordinating with the district department of energy and the environment to amend the stormwater management plan to encompass the full site, including the VLC. And the recommendations are also listed in the first few pages of your report. So I would like to now introduce Tina Menendez, director of the Bezos Learning Center with the Smithsonian Institution, who would like to provide some remarks. Myself and several others from the applicant team are available to answer your questions.

Thank you so much, Stephanie. Tina?

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, Ms. Free and members of the commission. The Bezos Learning Center will bring together STEAM-related collections and experts across the institution in promoting inquiry-based opportunities for learners of all ages with a focus on schools and community groups. On behalf of the Smithsonian Institution, the National Air and Space Museum, and the project team, we are pleased to return to the Commission for review of the final design for the Construct Integrated Bezos Learning Center project. We wish to thank the Commission staff for their collegial participation in the design development for this project through the completion of the Historic Preservation Section 106 consultation process and National Environmental Policy Act review. Their input has been invaluable and pressed the Smithsonian and design team to develop alternatives which progress the project design. Other members from the Smithsonian and the design team led by Perkins and Will are here with me today to address your comments and any questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Tina. Do any commissioners online have any questions for either of our two presenters? Hearing none, do any commissioners here with us in chambers have any questions?

I just have one. It's on the fin that's being installed for the lighting. So first, fantastic design. I just wanted to commend you on that. And just a follow-on question I had, I guess. The mechanism that's going to attach it from a wind load perspective, we get some pretty high winds over here. And just curious on the detail on ours, has that not been sorted out yet?

Thank you for your question. We have, I can't tell you the specific detail personally, but we have a exterior wall consultant that's been scrutinizing all those details, including that. And we've taken that into account, certainly.

And could you just state your name for the record, please?

Brian Schabel, design director of Chicago office at Perkinsville.

Thank you, Brian. Again, fantastic design, but appreciate that.

Do any other commissioners here in this in chambers have any questions? Hearing none, we will now turn to public testimony. We have one person who indicated that they wanted to testify publicly on this matter, Bernard Byrne. I believe you're attending virtually, and you have three minutes, sir. Please proceed.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Thank you. The landscape plan for this project does not adequately conform to the NCPC's Voluntary Best Resources Written Guide. Although the Smithsonian has added common milkweed and made other changes at my request to the plant list, other entries and omissions are still not consistent with regard to recommendations. For example, The project's plant list contains 16 species of shrubs, trees, shrubs, and perennials that are not native to the National Capital Region. Three are not native to North America. Some may not provide forage for native pollinators or food for their larvae. I have informed the Smithsonian about these. The guide states that the use of some non-native plants is acceptable in designed landscapes if they are not necessarily invasive. However, 16 species is too many. Years may pass before some plants appear on invasive plant species lists. The plant list contains Japanese shield fern. This plant is native only to Asia. It is on the list of non-native invasive plants of the city of Alexandria, Virginia. That's right here. The Smithsonian needs to remove this plant from its list. The NCPC guide states, take care when selecting plant cultivars. Some plants are selected for traits attractive to humans, but not pollinators, such as size, color, and shape. Therefore, prioritize the original native species whenever possible. The plant list should not contain any cultivars unless they are more resistant to disease than their parents are. However, the plant list contains 19 cultivars that lack such increased resistance. The Smithsonian therefore needs to replace all 19 cultivars with their native parents, if any, or with native species that have similar characteristics to those of the cultivars. These characteristics include the size, shape, and colors of flowers and foliage. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Byrne. I appreciate your taking the time to testify today. I believe that concludes the public testimony on this item. Is there a motion to approve final site and building plans for the National Air and Space Museum Construct Integrated Bezos Learning Center?

So moved.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you, Commissioner. I'll now open it up to the Commission for discussion. I'll start the deliberations with Commissioner Tunstall-Williams.

Thank you. Thank you to Stephanie and to the design team for this presentation. Really appreciate seeing the development of this project. It's very exciting. The concept that you've had initially has stayed strong all the way through. You've done a great job. And I think just the little elements of refinement have really gone a long way, particularly the lighting. The only thing that I will say is what I said when we looked at the mock-up just to get it on the record. I encourage you to look at the underside of those fins to make sure that the reflectivity and diffusion is right when viewed from down below. We just want to avoid having sort of weird hotspots or seeing the actual diodes that are lighting up. And then the other similarly small issue in the planting signs, the one that's in the landscape that was black seemed discordant to me. And I might encourage you to look at the color of that and maybe look at what you're using on the mullions of the building just to soften it a little bit. Again, minor comments, excellent project and look forward to it moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon.

Great project. Looking forward to it moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cash.

No additional comments, but thanks to the team. I really appreciate where the project is going.

Commissioner McGowan.

Thank you. I've got no additional comments, but appreciate the informative presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart.

Thanks to the staff for their work on this. It's a really exciting design, really exciting project in its function, and look forward to it moving forward.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Schaefer. So just one thing I wanted to add, and we talked about it when we looked at the mock-up as well, and understand the lot of work that's gone into the lighting. But I would like to just think that we have an opportunity here from a lighting perspective. And I absolutely see the illustration here that shows the tails. It's gorgeous. But I can't help but wonder, wouldn't that have a little bit of a wow factor if that light was in motion? So again, I know maybe that's been talked about previously as we discussed, but I just wanted to get this on the record to consider that. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Stidham.

The design, both to the building and to the landscape, have really progressed very nicely. I mean, I was not seeing that rotation when we first started. but now you see the rotation in the building, you see the rotation in the landscape, and it all just plays out. And I think the lighting is just sort of the cherry on top. I think it adds that sense of motion, respectfully, even without the light moving. I think you feel the light moving. So really a very nice job in responding to the commission's comments and other public comments that you've received.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo?

I concur with, we've had a lot of good comments from the other commissioners, all of which I agree with. I particularly, to reflect what some people have said, appreciate the approach and the work done on the lighting. I think it's going to be, I was going to say spectacular. That's probably a little over the top, but I think it's really going to work and highlight this exciting project. Thanks so much for your work on this.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Levenbach?

I have no comments at this time.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Blair? No comments. Speaking for myself, I'd like to thank the Smithsonian Institution and the design team for their diligence working on this project, working through staff and stakeholder comments. I think the level and degree of their diligence is demonstrated by the presentation we just heard today and the extensive briefing materials provided as well. This certainly appears to be a very exciting project and we look forward to seeing how things develop moving forward. Are there any further questions or comments? In that case, I think we have a motion on the table. Madam Secretary, would you please confirm the motion and second and take the vote by roll call?

Yes, the motion was made by Commissioner Tunstall-Williams and seconded by Commissioner Schaefer. Commissioner Cozart? Yes. Commissioner Schaefer?

Yes.

Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo? Yes. Commissioner Levenbach?

Abstain.

Chair Scharf?

Abstain.

Commissioner Blair?

Abstain. Thank you.

Commissioner Tunstall-Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes.

Commissioner McGowan? Abstain. Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you. With that motion having carried, we now move on to agenda item 6C, which is a request to approve preliminary building plans for the Capital One Arena improvements. Jamie? Oh, hello again. Second, I thought I'd moved back to the wrong item on the agenda here. But Jamie, great to have you back with us. Thank you. Please proceed.

All right. All right. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Commission. The District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development, along with Monumental Sports Entertainment and their design team, have submitted preliminary site and building plans for the Capital One Arena for review and approval by the Commission. Overall, the applicant has made positive improvements to the design based on Commission feedback, and staff recommends the Commission approve the preliminary site and building plans of the Capital One Arena. The applicant initiated consultation with staff in December and then gave an information presentation to the Commission at the February Commission meeting. NCPC staff and the applicant initiated the Section 106 process in February and held consultation meetings in March, April, and May. The Commission provided comments to the applicant on the concept plan in May, and today the Commission is reviewing and approving preliminary site and building plans. The applicant will come back at a future date for the final review. As a reminder for the preliminary review stage, the commission is focused on topics such as the project's consistency with the federal elements of the comprehensive plan, the architectural and landscape strategy, the appropriateness of the site for the given context, and how the project will affect views and viewsheds. The applicant has indicated that their goals and objectives for the project are to transform the arena with a unified identity to extend the functional life. They intend to improve access and circulation, improve building materials, transparency, and activation with the goal of being a catalyst for area renewal. Staff supports the project objectives to extend the functional life of the arena and reinforce its urban presence within downtown Washington, D.C. by improving access, enhancing wayfinding, and the arrival experience, enlivening the arena exterior to make it a must-see building for residents and visitors, and activating the arena as an entertainment venue in the heart of the city. Capital One Arena is located on the block bounded by 6th Street on the east, 7th Street on the west, F Street on the south, and Gallery Place Way on the north. The arena is located in the middle of downtown, surrounded by significant National Historic Landmarks, or NHLs, including the Patent Office, now the Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture, also called the Reynolds Center, the General Post Office, now called Hotel Monaco, and the Pension Building, which is now the National Building Museum. Immediately adjacent to Capital One is the Reynolds Center, originally the Patent Office Building, which is a National Historic Landmark and considered one of the most significant buildings in Washington, D.C. The Section 106 process has been evaluating the impact of the updated design on this and other historic buildings, and staff requests the applicant continue to coordinate with consulting parties in preparation of the Memorandum of Agreement for the project as part of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process. The existing building, opened in 1997, was designed to appear as a series of separate facades to break up the building massing. The primary corner at 7th and F Streets includes a large corner digital display and the main entry on 7th Street is demarcated by a large awning. The applicant has made several changes noted here since the concept review in May, including lowering the upper edge of the veil by 10 feet, lifting the lower edge of the veil on F Street by 10 feet, updating the lighting details and technical specifications, adding new vertical metal framing on 6th Street, removing the digital banner, lowering the digital signs and integrating them with the facade, and updating the landscape plans, all of which directly address the Commission's previous comments. Now I will review these changes in detail. As I noted, the updating building design includes raising the lower level of the veil and lowering the top as well, pulling it in at the corner of 7th and F Streets, removing the horizontal digital sign ban, and integrating the facade with the digital boards. In these elevations, you see that the veil has been pulled back on Gallery Place Way and the addition of metal frames on 6th Street. Now I will review the changes through visual rendered comparisons. This is the prior building design from May at the corner of 7th and F Streets. This is the updated design. The applicant has lowered the edge of the top of the veil by 10 feet and increased the transparency at this main corner to reduce the perceived scale. The applicant has also lowered the height of the corner digital display and removed the horizontal digital banner. The lower level of the veil has also been raised by 10 feet. The applicant has submitted some additional details on the lighting specifications, but staff recommends the applicant continue to refine the lighting plan to demonstrate the intended illumination levels and aesthetic for the combined lighting on the updated building. This is the previous view at the corner of 7th and F streets looking east. And this is the updated view. You can see the lowered height of the veil and the digital signage. In addition, the applicant has integrated the facade material to be flush with the digital signs so they do not protrude from the building. This is the previous view of F Street looking west towards the Reynolds Center. And this is the updated view. You can see the veil has been pulled back slightly at the corner, so it is not as prominent adjacent to the Reynolds Center. The rendering also shows the addition of two new street trees and the removal of the digital band. This is the previous view of the corner of F and Sixth Streets. This is the updated view. You can see that the veil on F Street has been raised, exposing more of the new glazing. There is also a digital sign that has been added to this facade. Given the updates, staff request the applicant further evaluate street level treatment of the facade along Sixth Street to ensure it is engaging for pedestrians. This is the previous rendering of 6th Street looking south. And this is the new view. You can see better, the applicant is proposing a series of metal frames attached to the facade and extending north from the terminus of the veil. As noted in the Executive Director's report, it is infeasible for a variety of reasons to fully extend the veil due to a metro tunnel under 6th Street. Instead, the applicant is proposing the vertical metal frames to mimic the movement of the veil. As such, staff supports conceptually extending the veil on 6th Street through design elements like the framing and recommends the applicant continue to refine the design to reinforce the sense of movement and connection to the veil. Moving over to 7th Street, this is the previous view looking north. In this updated view, you see the removal of the horizontal digital sign band and the reduction width of the digital sign at the corner. In this previous view on Gallery Placeway, you see the veil extended into Gallery Placeway. In the updated rendering, the veil has been pulled back to the corner, and overall staff supports the design changes made to date, especially the modifications to the veil, the new facade treatment on 6th Street, the updated lighting details, the removal of the horizontal digital banner, and the integration of the digital screens into the facade. Here we have a view comparison between the existing building streetscape with the proposed changes. This is the existing building view of 7th and F streets. This is the updated design in the existing streetscape. You can see the lowered veil and digital corner sign and the removed digital banner. In terms of street level activation, The applicant has provided more information on the existing activation and state of retail in the immediate area. There is significant empty retail space at present, so adding new retail space may not create the level of activation the Commission had hoped for. As noted, the applicant is proposing the same amount of retail as the last iteration, but evaluating different creative ways to increase street-level activation without retail, including artwork installations and the team history wall. The previous planned streetscape had less greenery than existing, and the updated plan adds two existing trees back to the plan as requested by the commission, and staff encourages Monumental Sports and Entertainment to continue collaborating with the district regarding opportunities to enhance the surrounding streetscape and improve the public realm to support both the arena as well as the neighborhood as a whole. The applicant is also proposing to make improvements to the entrance to the metro station at 7th and F Streets, including widening the entrances and pulling the corner out as architectural wayfinding. Staff requests the applicant continue to coordinate with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority regarding the proposed metro rail station entrance changes. In conclusion, staff appreciates the responsiveness of the applicant team in coordination with staff to address the Commission's comments including lowering the upper edge of the veil, raising the lower edge of the veil, lowering the height and square footage of the corner digital display, removing the horizontal digital banner, providing additional technical lighting details, and adding a new design element on 6th Street to ensure all the facades are cohesive. As such, staff recommends the Commission approve the preliminary site and building plans for the Capital One Arena Improvements Project at 601 F Street NW in Washington, DC. This concludes my presentation. I have incorporated the recommendations into the presentation, but they are also here for your reference. The applicant and their design team are here to answer any questions you may have, and they have also brought a model so you can visualize the changes to the arena, though it is small. Thank you. Not from afar, but like up close, you can visualize the changes.

So thank you. Thank you, Jamie. Do any of our commissioners online have any questions? Hearing none. Do any commissioners here in chambers with us have any questions? Hearing none. Is there a motion to approve preliminary building plans for the Capital One Arena improvements?

So moved.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Thank you. I'll now open things up to the Commission for discussion. I'll start the deliberations with Commissioner Cozart.

Good afternoon and thanks again, Jamie, for you've got two big projects today. Appreciate the staff for their work on this and certainly to the team and the team designers for continuing to iterate on this. It comes at a really great time where the mayor's recently, as part of the budget, really thought about how to bring vibrancy to the environment around the arena to really complement the investment the city is making, but also the significant investment the team is making. And so it's really... this great kind of intersection of ideas coming to reality to really beautify this area and again bring that right vibrancy. Appreciate the staff's note related to retail and the ideas of needing to bring that pedestrian experience to life so that people can experience that. It doesn't always have to be retail. There's other creative ways of doing that and we've realized a lot of that. through the Gallery Place Chinatown Task Force work and appreciate all of the participation in that. Really excited about the evolution around of the design, both in terms of the veil, but also in terms of kind of that street level experience and looking forward to moving this along.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Schaefer, it's a beautiful design. I look forward to seeing it implemented. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Stidham?

Thank you for the presentation. And the design has come a long way. You know, the veil is still a big question for me. I'm not quite there yet, but it is starting to grow on me. And it does really accentuate the building. I think I agree that the Sixth Street work still needs some work, some consideration. While the fins are really good, I think they need to... um, adjust the design in such a way that they feel more incorporated as part of the veil instead of like stuck on, um, and, and then just like an afterthought, like something's missing. Um, so I would just encourage thinking about that a little more, you know, Stanley cup was not successful this year. So maybe next year, um, and maybe this, you know, motivates, uh, the team to do better, but, um, thank you for the changes in the presentation. And I look forward to this as it progresses.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo?

Yes. I appreciate I don't remember who commented, but the basic evolution of the design, which, you know, which has been not just interesting to, you know, to watch and to participate in, but it's turned into something I think that we can all be excited about. I appreciate the attention to the impact on other historic properties in the area. I think that's doing things like this in the area that we're doing them. Thank you for all your work on this. Looking forward to the next stage. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Levenbach?

Well, thank you for the presentation, all the work that went into the review. No questions.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Blair? No questions. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Tunstall-Williams?

Yes. I see you all cringing. No. Like Commissioner Siddham, the veil will probably never be my favorite element, but I will say I really want to commend your team. You have been, while faithful to your concept and your mission, you have been open to constructive consideration and making tweaks and it shows. And I think this time you really are very, very close. I mean, there are a couple of things I agree. Maybe there can be some horizontal that connect those fins to make it feel all one piece, but it really does feel more like a unified building as opposed to something that just landed on top from the wind. So I think just those small tweaks that you made really have gone a long way in sort of unifying this building. So thank you for that. I would also really like to thank the team and Monumental for the, if I put on my historic preservation hat, for the very significant and meaningful mitigation that you're incorporating in this project. It really is a testament to your commitment to community and to making DC a better place. And so as a DC resident and a fellow preservationist, I really do thank you. Only other thing about, and I would agree with others, just to continue to evolve the pedestrian experience and the streetscape It's very harsh there. I know you don't have a lot of curb line to work with, but things that you can do to soften that and make it a little bit more pleasant as you're queuing to get into all the great events that happen. That's all I have to say, but otherwise, great project. I really appreciate your willingness to sort of evolve with us.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon?

I associate myself with the comments of my fellow commissioners, and I just hope I'll get a chance to see it and also be able to get tickets to go in it.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cash?

Great, thanks. I just want to commend the team at Monumental and the design team. I think it's one of the cases where we've seen every time the design comes back, it's gotten tremendously better in some ways we hadn't even asked for. I know that last time I geeked out about the 6th Street improvements that have far to come, and now you've added those fin elements, which I actually think are... It may need a little bit more work and thought, but I think that it was a very interesting piece to put on a 6th Street that we hadn't even asked for. My only other comment is that I would encourage you to look at whatever you're doing on 6th Street with those fins. And I think that it could actually be something you apply over to the G Street entrance as well, because now that you've taken the veil farther back from G Street, it seems like you can do something similar just to keep that cohesiveness around the entire what was the veil. So thanks so much for the evolution of the design. I look forward to coming back on final.

Thank you, Commissioner. Lastly, Commissioner McGowan.

I have no comments, but thank you so much for the presentation.

Thank you, Commissioner. I'd just like to thank the district and Monumental Sports. I think one common stream that we've heard from for many of the commissioners today is how diligent you've been in working to address commission comments. And I know that that certainly seems to be appreciated. Looking forward to continuing to work with you. And again, speaking personally, the design really seems to have come a long way and seems to be a tremendous market improvement, obviously, over the existing structure there. So thank you. And also, obviously, thanks to the staff for all of their hard work that's gone into continuing iterations of this design as we move farther and farther down the path here. With that, are there any further comments or questions? Hearing none, can the Secretary please confirm the motion in the second, and then let's take the vote by roll call.

Yes, the motion was made by Commissioner Argo and seconded by Commissioner Cozart. Commissioner Cozart? Yes. Commissioner Schaffer?

Yes.

Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo? Yes. Commissioner Levenbach?

Abstain.

Chair Scharf?

Abstain.

Commissioner Blair?

Abstain.

Commissioner Tunstall-Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes.

Commissioner McGowan? Yes. Thank you. The motion passes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. And thank you, Jamie. Agenda item 6D is a request to approve preliminary site development plans for the Ash Road rehabilitation. And we have Lee Webb here to discuss that. Thank you, Lee. Yes.

Good afternoon, Chair Scharf and members of the Commission. The National Park Service has submitted preliminary site development plans for the rehabilitation of Ash Road, which is located on the National Mall. The opening of the new United States Park Police horse stables removed a significant amount of vehicular traffic from Ash Road. The project will transform the road into a safer and more comfortable environment for bicyclists and pedestrians. After the project is completed, NPS proposes to rename it Ash Walk to better reflect its intended use consistent with the 2010 National Mall Plan. The short, tree-lined service road is located along the western side of the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and is highlighted here in red. The road connects key landmarks such as the World War II Memorial and the Korean War Veterans Memorial and is used for restricted vehicle access along with pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Here are a few images of Ashe Road showing today's existing conditions with its asphalt surface. The project includes replacing the existing asphalt paving with exposed aggregate concrete paving, installing site furnishings, replacing filled drains and storm piping as new stormwater infrastructure, and planting 10 new trees. Ashe Road's new surface will be exposed gray aggregate concrete with no edge, and this will create a subtle distinction while maintaining consistency with its connecting paths. The exposed aggregate concrete in a gray color mirrors the material of the walk at the Korean War Veterans Memorial. Staff recommends that the Commission support the applicant's preferred approach of an exposed gray aggregate concrete with no edge for the new paving for Ash Road. Site furnishings, including benches, lighting, and bike racks, will be upgraded in alignment with NPS and National Mall standards. These include black finish ADA compliant benches, removable bollards, water bottle filler fountains, bike racks, and traditional Washington Globe lights. Furnishings are strategically placed to support visitor needs while maintaining the site's historic and visual character. The bollards allow for official vehicles and emergency responders to access the area while limiting vehicular use by the general public. Five new black finish ADA compliant bench locations are proposed and the orientation of the benches will accommodate both field and path views. The 10 existing willow oak trees in the vicinity will remain and construction activities will be managed so as not to damage the critical root zones. 10 additional willow oak trees will be planted to help fill in the alley of trees. A change in turf grass species at the edge of the JFK hockey fields is proposed to highlight the edge of the fields and the furnishing zones. NCPC received public comment regarding the choice of the grasses to be used for the edge. However, staff notes that the turf grass is a narrow strip in area and returns an existing condition once Ash Road is rehabilitated. The area north of Ash Road is part of the hockey field and serves as an active recreation and play area. Given the high level of foot traffic and sports-related use, NPS selected Bermuda grass and tall fescue for their durability and ability to withstand heavy wear. However, NPS recognizes the importance of supporting pollinator habitat and the benefits of incorporating native plant species where appropriate and sees an opportunity to introduce native perennials along some sections of the southern edge of the road, particularly adjacent to the stable and the World War II restroom areas. NPS, as the applicant, has indicated they will explore suitable native plantings in these buffer zones per the public comment. As such, staff recommends that the Commission approves the preliminary site development plans for the Ash Road rehabilitation located on the National Mall in Washington and finds the site improvements will enhance the visitor experience for this part of the National Mall. This concludes my presentation, and I'll note that Brian Flynn, a landscape architect with the National Park Service, is also here virtually to help answer any questions the commission may have.

Thank you. Thank you, Lee. Do any of our commissioners online have any questions? Hearing none, do any commissioners here with us today have any questions?

Sorry, I can't help myself, I guess. Just a question. So... The Bermuda grass, is that what's out there right now? Or is that part of the fields? Or what type of grass is on the fields? And the reason I'm asking, I guess, is I'm not from the area, but down from Alabama, we have a lot of Bermuda grass. And it goes dormant, like really dormant in the wintertime. And I just... I'm just curious if that's going to be part of the fields that's going to get torn up. So that's the basis of my question.

My understanding, there is Bermuda grass already used on the fields. That was chosen back in 2016 because of its durability and also the fact that there are no really good native turf grasses that can be used in our region for durability for like a recreation field.

Okay.

No, great. Thank you.

I just didn't know what the existing was. So appreciate it. Sure.

Thank you, commissioner. Do any other commissioners have any questions? Seeing none, we now turn to public testimony. And we have one person signed up to speak today. Bernard Byrne is here with us again. Sir, you will have three minutes to provide your testimony on this project. And please proceed when you're ready.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Thank you. Again, the landscape plan for this project does not adequately conforms to the NTPC's Pollinator Best Practice Resource Guide. The guide reports that a federal document including supporting the health of honeybees and other pollinators states that the use of some non-native plants and designed landscapes is acceptable as long as they are not considered invasive. However, the National Park Service has planned to install in this project two native turf grasses, Bermuda grass and tall fescue that are not native to North America. Boats have been reported outside of cultivation in over 1,400 district jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia. Boats are on many invasive plant lists. In response to my comments, the Park Service wrote, the area north of Ash Road is part of the JFK hockey field and serves as an active recreation and play area. Given the high level of foot traffic and sport-related use, we selected Bermuda grass and tall fescue for their durability and ability to withstand heavy wear. In contrast to the staff report, these are not temporary changes. Further, this does not justify the plantings of two highly invasive turfgrasses. The Park Service repeated an action that it took in 2016 when it installed a pair of invasive turfgrasses, Kentucky Bluegrass and Fescue, as part of a major rehabilitation of the center of the National Mall. You can see this now. As I was previously informed of the Park Service, Two native plants, wood sedge and lyreleaf sage, are known to form dense mats and produce solid ground covers, thus becoming suitable log substitutes, as publications stated. The Park Service should install these plants in at least a part of the project area. This will allow the service to determine for once whether they are as durable and can withstand as much heavy wear as the invasive plants it intends to install. The result of this comparison can guide the park service when making plans for the hockey field, the National Mall, and other lawn-like grasses throughout the National Capital Region. Despite what the person just said, these are available, they're native, and they should test it out to see if they really have the same durability as the plants they're intending to put in. Thank you.

That concludes public testimony. Thank you, Mr. Byrne, for the concerns that you expressed and for taking the time to join us today. With that, is there a motion to approve preliminary site development plans for the Ash Road rehabilitation?

So moved.

Thank you, ma'am. Is there a second?

Second.

I'll now open things up to the Commission for discussion, and we will start deliberations with Commissioner Cash.

No. Maybe start with Commissioner Stidham and work our way around.

Okay. Commissioner Stidham.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. This has sort of been, you know, I've called it Ash Road for my entire career. Calling it Ash Walk will be a challenge. But I have to say that this has been a place of confusion for visitors for a very long time. Because while it was for limited access, it looked like a road. It felt like a road. And visitors didn't know if they should be there or not. But it provides a great opportunity to visit the stables that has recently completed, the D.C. War Memorial, and a variety of other memorials as they walk from Lincoln or to Lincoln. These improvements will greatly improve that experience and will once and for all be a visitor space and will feel and be a visitor space. It's a very shaded area. It provides great respite, especially this time of year. And these amenities will really just improve that overall experience.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner McGowan, you can go too.

Yes, I don't have any other comments, but thank you so much for the presentation.

Commissioner Cozart.

I appreciate the staff's presentation and work on this project. No additional comments.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Schaefer.

Just to echo, great presentation. Appreciate it. Great afternoon.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo?

I appreciate the presentation and I'd like to align myself with Commissioner Stidham's comments. Right on target, very thoughtful. And thank you for your work on this.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Levenbach?

Thanks for the staff work on the review. I have no questions or comments.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Blair? No comments. Thank you. Commissioner Tunstall-Williams.

So something to say. No, just to thank the Park Service for their continued stewardship of this important landscape. It really, I mean, that's a heavily traversed part of the mall. And I think the opportunity to provide safe and clear pedestrian, you know, movement across the mall and obviously shade is much needed, particularly in the middle of June and July when all the tourists are here. So again, thank you for your thoughtful stewardship of the mall and we appreciate it.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon.

Yes, sounds like a great effort. I was hoping that he could put some furniture there since it's so shady and comfortable. I hope there's going to be someplace that works for the people to sit down and enjoy that. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Oh, Commissioner Cash is back. Commissioner Cash?

I'm sorry about that. I didn't have any additional comments or questions, but thanks for the presentation.

Thanks, Commissioner. I think this is obviously a very important project given the centrality of the National Mall to the visitor experience to Washington DC and the experience of so many residents who take advantage of the resources on the mall. I'd like to thank the staff who have prepared this presentation, the National Park Service for everything that they've done, and look forward to seeing the site continue to develop. So thank you. Are there any further questions or comments? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, would you like to confirm the motion and take the vote by roll call?

Yes, the motion was made by Commissioner Stidham and seconded by Commissioner Tunstall-Williams. Commissioner Cozart? Yes. Commissioner Schaefer?

Yes.

Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo? Yes. Commissioner Levenbach?

Abstain.

Chair Scharf?

Abstain.

Commissioner Blair?

Abstain.

Commissioner Tunstall-Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes.

Commissioner McGowan? Abstain. Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you. We now move on to agenda item 7A. So we're off of our decision items now, I guess. And this is an informational presentation on a telecommunications infrastructure plan and environmental assessment that is being prepared for the National Mall and Memorial Parks and surrounding areas by the National Park Service. And Stephanie Free is here with us today to provide an overview and introduce the team for their presentation.

Yes, thank you. Hello again. As you mentioned today, AECOM, on behalf of the National Park Service, will provide an information presentation on a telecommunications infrastructure plan and environmental assessment being prepared for the National Mall and Memorial Parks and surrounding areas in Washington, D.C. The presentation will begin with a staff overview of the Commission's role in the review of antennas and the Commission's prior involvement and efforts related to small cell and antenna guidelines. AECOM will then present an overview of the NAMA telecommunications plan, and the presentation will conclude with a few points to prompt the Commission's discussion. So as a reminder, the Commission is responsible for the review of antenna placement and their structures on federal land in the National Capital Region and on District of Columbia-owned land in Washington, D.C. The Commission's interest focuses on protecting the Capitol skyline, historic resources, and the scenic character of the National Capitol. This includes preserving the general appearance of federal buildings and providing all users with a healthy, safe, and beautiful environment. The potential locations of the telecommunications facilities throughout the National Mall and Memorial Parks area, which is the subject of the NPS plan, are of utmost importance due to the presence of nationally significant historic and cultural resources. With a growing demand for wireless technology across the country, cell carriers are working to relieve the congestion on existing networks by deploying small cell antenna infrastructure. The installation of small cell antennas is one piece of a larger strategy to increase cell capacity. Other strategies include rooftop antennas and mobile antennas like those seen in the images here. In response to this growing demand, NCPC developed guidelines for rooftop antennas in 2020. Since then, NCPC has reviewed and approved dozens of applications for antenna infrastructure proposed on federal buildings. Prior to that in 2019, the commission reviewed and commented on the district small cell infrastructure guidelines, which included potential locations for small cells within district rights of way. The commission later approved a design for the district standalone small cell pole in 2024. Here we have the Federal Core Interest Area Map, which was developed in coordination with NCPC and other federal agencies for the district small cell guidelines. This map identifies the only permissible locations for small cell facilities on district rights-of-way in the areas of highest federal interest around the National Mall. This map excluded the National Mall itself and Independence and Constitution Avenues as it was intended that a more comprehensive evaluation of coverage needs and facilities placement would be developed for the mall area. The NPS National Mall and Memorial Park's telecommunications plan is intended to fill in that gap. To give you a visual, a few variations of small cell antennas are shown here. Small cell facilities are generally located on poles around 30 to 35 feet in height to accommodate signal transmission along a street corridor. Small cell antennas can be mounted to existing light poles or other similar structures or can be attached to a customized standalone pole. Antenna equipment can range from 5 to 7 feet in height, while electrical cabinets and other support equipment can range from 4 to 5 feet in height and about 3 feet in width. Depending on the design and the provider, the cabinets can be integrated into the pole base, attached to the middle or top of the pole, installed as boxes near the pole, or even located in an underground vault. You may recall through review of the district's guidelines that proposed small cell locations in the monumental core were evaluated with photo simulations. While the design of the poles was not known at that time, they were conceptualized to provide an understanding of the visual impacts. This type of study was done for several streets throughout the monumental core and led to the locations approved on the federal core interest area map. The commission later approved the district's individual small cell poll in 2024. Here we have some images of the approved poll design placed in the approved locations throughout the F Street and 8th Street corridors using augmented reality. So looking ahead, the NPS National Mall and Memorial Park's telecommunications plan will conceptualize proposed antenna locations on and around the National Mall. Similar to the district's 2019 guidelines, the NAMA plan does not include a design for this infrastructure, which will be developed and reviewed separately in the future. Staff has included a few points for discussion in your meeting materials. We will review these together following the applicant's presentation. And then now I'd like to hand this off to Michael Soderman and Claire Sale of AECOM on behalf of NPS. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you very much. Go ahead and Thank you. So the methodology that we used, we evaluated existing conditions. The intent of this study is to increase capacity by five times as far as for these areas. We evaluated the most effective options while minimizing resource impacts. And so we divided the study area into five areas. We have the National Mall East, the Washington Monument Grounds and President's Park South, Potomac Park and Lincoln Memorial, West Potomac Park, Tidal Basin, and then the East Potomac Park.

Next, please.

Existing conditions. As part of our study and part of the project, we actually did signal testing, hopped on scooters with backpacks, and we took all live signal testing and were able to evaluate as far as where there are inadequate network coverage and capacity areas. So this is all live data at that time of what was deployed. Next, please. So existing conditions, the plans needed to address the following concerns, non-conforming infrastructure, operational maintenance challenges for long-term planning of future infrastructure. Next, please. So overall approach. So we have the permanent, as shown earlier, we have the permanent cell sites as far as the macro sites, which are predominantly on the rooftops, and then small cells, which have been deployed currently, and then the temporary solutions, cows, colts, which are wheeled in for planned events, so on and so forth. Next, please. This is just an example of me walking around the hill and the mall area taking pictures of what has been deployed as far as on the streets so far. Next, please. So existing small cell pool infrastructure. Currently, this shows all of the small cell infrastructure currently present on DDOT streetlights and or third-party pools. There are gaps as shown here, and those coverage gaps are the areas that we're including in this minimum build-out study. Next, please. So constraints, tree canopy, it blocks a signal from any locations. The entire study area contains cultural resources, view sheds, multiple historic properties, the low scale of existing buildings, Existing macros located on buildings limit opportunity to add in facilities. And then of course physical site properties need to be accommodated. Antenna size, housing size, antenna mounting, site coverage. The methodology we used was to take a look and try to minimize impacts on cultural resources. use existing non-contributing architectural features when possible, and then reduce maintenance requirements, as well as consider the number of sites. Try to figure out a minimum build-out. Next, please. So the types of architectural features in the study area, we have light poles, stanchions, wayfinding pylons, structures, and small-scale features. And this, I believe, is where I'm going to turn it over to Claire. Another aspect that I want to just reiterate, our study is a study. It's not a design, right? So all of that will be coming in the future as far as by the carriers and the third-party operators, right? Thank you.

So here are, we looked at the types of architectural features that are within the study area. These include the existing light poles. I would note that all of these are contributing to historic resources with the exception of the Cobra lights. On the next slide, we'll see the existing stanchions. So these are the large light fixtures that light memorials. They're not for pedestrians, they're for the memorials. And these are also considered not contributing. The next slide, we'll see the wayfinding pylons that are located around the National Mall. On the next slide, we'll see the existing structures, both the existing structures and structures that are considered in the future, including future comfort stations. Next slide. There are a number of small scale features, and we looked at all of these things as a way to, could they be incorporated? Next slide. And as I mentioned earlier, the existing lighting stanchions for memorial lighting are not part of the contributing resources. So we kind of explored initially how those could work. And so here's an example of an illustration of how those could be incorporated. The next slide, please. So we looked at the potential locations for the nodes throughout the study area. On the next slide, you can see how we've broken that up on this five sub areas that Mike mentioned previously. Next slide, please. This shows the National Mall East location. We have conceptually placed these along the lawn panels of the National Mall, and that is primarily due to the tree cover along Jefferson and Madison drives. Next slide, please. At the Washington Monument Grounds in President's Park South, we have two that are conceptually located along the ellipse, as well as along the Washington Monument Grounds. So those would be at the existing lighting stanchions for the Washington Monument, as well as potentially on the screening facility structure that's there. Next slide, please. Here at West Potomac Park around the Lincoln Memorial, there are also needs for nodes located throughout this area. We have a couple of located at the memorial lighting stanchions for the Lincoln Memorial, as well as others located within Constitution Gardens and along Ash Walk. Next slide, please. So here along the West Potomac Park tidal basin, Again, using memorial stanchions at the Jefferson Memorial and the FDR Memorial, as well as other locations would be placed throughout the site, including along Ohio Drive near the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial and elsewhere along the Tidal Basin. Next slide, please. And then finally, we have East Potomac Park, so Haines Point area. These don't have any memorial lighting stanchions, so these would be placed, we're anticipating, along the perimeter of Haines Point and East Potomac Park.

Next slide, please.

So based on that, this is kind of how these all look when put together. As you can see, they're sort of sprinkled throughout in order to address the needs. Next slide, please. And then in terms of next steps, in the fall, we anticipate having a 30-day public scoping period to receive comments. At that time, we would have a formal review by the National Capital Planning Commission and the US Commission of Fine Arts for the concept. In the winter, we would anticipate the release of an environmental assessment that would serve as the plan. And then in terms of the future, as mentioned before, This is not a design. This is a plan for how it could be implemented. And so in the future, operators would provide the location and design proposals specific to their needs for approval. And that concludes our presentation. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Do any commissioners for this online have any questions?

I do, sir. Chairman?

Yeah, please go ahead.

Yeah. The requirement that you're looking at is strictly focused on the mall, is that correct?

Yes, this effort is focused on the National Mall and surrounding areas on East Potomac Park and the Tidal Basin, as mentioned.

Okay, what about the space along the Anacostia Park area? Is that not considered at this time?

No, not at this time.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner.

Do we have any other questions?

I have one just from in terms of the performance of the I guess the the footprint to what point do you talk to public a public safety officials and just to see whether the design meets the objectives of the project.

We have been coordinating as far as with public safety and DC OUC, so Charlie over there. It does increase their capacity to be able to use the 700 first net.

Yeah, first net. Yeah, okay. Great, thank you. Yeah.

Okay. Yes, ma'am.

To the capacity map, I just had a question. Because the numbers seem to be increasing, but the color was opposite. Did red indicate good or bad on that map?

Can you pull the map back?

I should have noted the slide.

Sorry about that.

We'll pull it back up. Okay.

My impression was that red was slower connection.

Then I was looking at the numbers, and the numbers were high. So I'm not an expert here, so I don't want them to tell me.

And I may have my co-colleague here, Michael Castle, answer that.

Yeah. Oh, are those negatives that I'm seeing? Oh, okay.

That's a negative DB. Now it makes more sense to me. So the bigger the number, the bigger the negative, the worse performance.

Okay. It makes more sense to me now. Thank you.

Does that resolve your concern?

It does resolve. I was like, this doesn't seem to make sense.

Are there any further questions from commissioners, either present or online? Hearing none, I'll now open things up to the commission for discussion, and I'll start the deliberation with Commissioner Tunstall-Williams.

Me again. One thing that I encourage you to consider in this, as you're aware, GSA is in the process of moving many of our buildings out of the inventory. And we have a ton of antennas on the top of a number of these buildings. We've heard anecdotally from the carriers that private sector buildings are less interested in having the antennas on their buildings. i think particularly for ones that might have occupied the roof terraces so i would just encourage you to think about loss of capacity as those buildings move out of the inventory so you can look at our accelerated disposal list the ones that particularly jump to my mind is the forestall building as well as the humphrey building i know they have a lot on them liberty loan does as well and as those start to move i i could see capacity getting worse in the south of the mall. The north side is less of an issue. However, those buildings have, we have a much harder time getting antennas on the top of them because of the clay tile roofs. So just something to, you don't have to address it, but just think about it as you guys are evaluating capacity and planning for it in the future. I think the timeline on some of those buildings is relatively quick, you know, two to five years, they would be moving out of inventory.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes, thank you. When will you reach a point where the carriers will be engaged in the process to improve the service? And will the requirement for a carrier competing for space, will there be a way to make sure that multiple carriers have access to the same space?

Maybe I can take that question, Commissioner Dixon. So the process that will be is that there's a number of carriers who obviously would have an interest here. The plan serves as that baseline, the framework, and carriers will be asked to provide proposals on how they can meet the requirements of the plan. And then the choice of the permit will result from there. So after the environmentalist, I think I missed your timing question. So after the environmental assessment is completed will be the opportunity for carriers to put in proposals.

Yeah, I've raised this question in the past. I guess I'm a little concerned about whether there will be a restriction on the number of carriers that would be in an area. In other words, once you do the bidding and what you just suggested, which I was aware of, will there be a point where only certain carriers will be in areas because of the availability of the antennas?

It will surely require the carriers to coordinate together and to work together to develop plans that will meet everybody's needs. Obviously, with the sensitivity of these spaces, we can't have eight different antennas for eight different carriers in every one of these nodes, right? So it will have to take some coordination and, frankly, some unique creativity from to be able to meet the capacity needs and the cultural resource problems.

Yeah, I think because the hoteling was dropped. It was an option about hoteling the antennas, but I think that's historical now.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cash? Commissioner Cash had to leave the meeting. Yeah, dropped. Okay, we'll move on to Commissioner McGowan.

I have no discussion, but thank you for the presentation.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart.

Appreciate this work. It's not always necessarily front and center, but we need the access when we need the access. So appreciate you all for doing this background work that sets us up for the future.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Schaefer. Thank you for the presentation. No further comments. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Stidham.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the information presentation. We are really just at the beginning of our work. So look forward to moving this project forward and getting some more feedback.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo.

Really important work. Appreciate it very much. And I'm glad it was on the agenda today. Thank you for your continued work and That's it. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Levenbach?

I have no comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Blair?

No comments.

Thank you. Speaking for myself, I'd just like to thank the National Park Service for their diligence and their work on this crucial issue. Obviously, our staff as well. I was involved in the rollout of FirstNet services back in the day in the state of Missouri. Whenever you're talking about wireless connectivity, there's obviously a public-facing component and also a security component, and I think nowhere is that different. more true than here in Washington, D.C. So improving wireless connectivity is obviously of vital importance, and I look forward to seeing how plans develop in the coming weeks and months. So thank you. We don't have anything else on the agenda. Before concluding the open session, though, do any other commissioners have any comments or questions? Commissioner Blair. Thank you.

Here in our first meeting, I wanted to raise an item of concern to me that will inform one of the pieces of work we'd like to do here. I hope that my colleagues on the commission will not feel like I am lecturing on the background of this Commission, but I'm going to anchor my comments in some back information about the Commission for the public's consumption and consideration. When you look on the National Capital Planning Commission's website and you look at what is the NCPC all about, I'd like to quote from that to frame my comments. Established by Congress in 1924, the NCPC is the federal government's central planning agency for the National Capital Region. Through planning, policymaking, and project review, NCPC protects and advances the federal government's interest in the region's development. The commission provides overall planning guidance for federal land and buildings in the region by reviewing the design of federal and certain local projects, overseeing long range planning for future development and monitoring capital investment by federal agencies. To put a finer point on that, when you look at the National Capital Planning Act of 1952, I would like to quote from that that the general objective of this act is to enable appropriate agencies to plan for the development of the federal establishment at the seat of government in a manner consistent with the nature and function of the national capital and with due regard for the rights and prerogatives of the adjoining states and local governments to exercise control appropriate to their functions and in a manner which will, in accordance with present and future needs, best promote public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and the general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development. As the new chair alluded to in his chairman's report earlier, there has been quite a bit of scrutiny on one of the projects here in the Capital Region previously approved by this commission, and that is the Federal Reserve's renovation project. Earlier, just a few weeks ago last month, the chairman of the Board of Governors testified in front of the U.S. Senate's Banking Committee where he was asked about some of the media reports about opulent features. I'd like to reference originally. The plan submitted to this commission looking in section 3.4.1, the design principles, the very first bullet references that the new addition should emphasize the Federal Reserve's civic importance while being modest and restrained. And Chairman Scott went on to ask about the cost overruns where this project was originally budgeted at, I believe, $1.8 billion, and it has ballooned to at least $2.5 billion with many reports suggesting it is headed towards $3 billion. It is hard to see anything that costs $3 billion as either modest or restrained. I would like to reference some comments put out earlier today publicly by Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vogt that references the cost per square foot at this $2.5 billion figure of the Federal Reserve's renovation project amounting to $1,923, which is double the cost for renovating an ordinary historic federal building. Some have started to refer to this as the Taj Mahal near the National Mall. Some have said it was the Palace of Versailles. I think that's what Chairman Scott referred to it as. Indeed, the Palace of Versailles in 2025 dollars would be about $3 billion, according to a study done by George Mason University. The Capitol building in today's dollars would have cost about $2.1 billion to construct, although it houses five times the square feet and five times the staff of the Federal Reserve building. For all of us that I'm sure have spent time at the United States Capitol, I don't think any of us would suggest it is a building that is not nicely designed with nice features and anything you could want to offer. Chairman Scharf and I had the great honor a couple of months ago to travel with the president to the Middle East, where we were able to dine in the Qasr al-Watan presidential palace in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. That palace, which is so opulent and extravagant that I posted it on my Instagram because I've never been in such a building, costs approximately $600 million to construct. 20% of the costs of the current projection of the Federal Reserve building. Now, I understand it is the historical and statutory role of this body to approve plans pre-construction, but as I alluded to earlier, there is at least some responsibility to protect the federal government's interests. I think it is squarely in the federal government's interests to ensure that dollars that do ultimately originate from the taxpayer, whether through appropriations or in this case, the exercising of monetary policy, are well spent. I think that as we look at the comments and I have the testimony here in front of the Senate Banking Committee, the chairman of the Board of Governors was asked about some of the features that have been mentioned, terrace gardens, water features, new marble, VIP dining rooms, etc., And his response was, other than that, all of these sorts, and I'm quoting from his testimony, all of the sort, quote, inflammatory things that the media carried are either not in the current plan or just inaccurate. What do others think about this? I will quote Professor Andrew T. Levin, a Dartmouth College economics professor, former Fed economist and advisor for two decades, who said a top Fed official cannot be permitted to make false statements under oath at a congressional hearing. Such statements must be promptly corrected in egregious cases subject to censure by the Senate. I do not think that this body, much less the U.S. Senate, but that's not why we are here, this body can be made a mockery of by approving plans that are not adhered to in a material way, that use clever word like modest and restrained. In fact, I will even quote further from 3.42 overall design approach where they connect that the transparency and the architectural expression creates a literal connection to the board's goals for more openness and transparency as an organization. We should not be made fools of by those that come ahead of us. It is our interest to ensure, as we mentioned earlier, we protect the federal government's interests. And I've already explained why we have an interest here. But again, even in the general objective of the act, which establishes and governs this body, we have a responsibility related to morals and prosperity and general welfare. I think as the monetary policy making institution of the United States, there is no body that has a greater effect on the prosperity or general welfare of the American public. And one may have a moral question when we look at some of these cost comparisons, possible allegations by others, not of me at this time, of whether or not they are being honest under oath in front of the United States Senate. So understanding these concerns, I will say that I am going to request a full review of plans of the Federal Reserve Project. I'm going to ask that they send us a detailed explanation and package of any and all upgrades, changes, and modifications to the plan THAT WAS SUBMITTED HERE IN 2021 AND APPROVED. I'M GOING TO REQUEST A SITE VISIT. I WELCOME ANY OF MY COLLEAGUES TO PARTICIPATE WITH ME IN THIS ENDEAVOR. I WILL LIKELY CIRCULATE A LETTER THAT I WILL WORK ON SOME COLLEAGUES WITH THAT I WILL SEND TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS REQUESTING FURTHER INFORMATION. AND WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CHAIR.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLAIR. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

I'd like to make a comment.

Commissioner Levenbot?

So first, I've enjoyed my first meeting. I appreciate all the staff work in these projects. It's really fascinating. And I look forward to working with you all. I'm glad that this point was raised. And I just want to add a couple of proof points that, for me, at least based on what I've read, resonate with the Fed building. It expands the headquarters by over 600,000 square feet, but it only adds about 200 additional employees, at least from what I've read. And that's 523 square feet per employee, which is far in excess of what the Office of Management and Budget has for standard footage per employee, which is about 150 square So this is a very, very expensive project. I mean, I think in my opening remarks, I said that we need federal buildings that are appropriate for the region. This is definitely not in that category. And among the, in addition to the rooftop tariffs, you didn't mention the beehives. I kept bees in the Peace Corps. There's certainly a time and place to keep bees on the top of a federal building is not one of them. So please count me in. I look forward to working with you on this letter and in scrutinizing this building. And I also appreciate the chair for raising it in his remarks. Thank you.

Are there any other commissioners that have any comments or questions before we conclude for the day? Well, thank you, Commissioners Blair and Levenbach for your insightful comments. Commissioner Blair, I too look forward to joining in your investigative and other efforts surrounding this very important issue. Speaking as chairman, I would just like to thank the staff once again for the extraordinary welcome they extended to us on very short notice this morning. I actually didn't have our executive director's phone number and reaching out and getting this all set up was a little bit complicated. I apologize for that on my end, but thank you truly for the welcome that you've extended to me and to my new colleagues on the board. This has been absolutely fascinating. The projects that we've reviewed today are obviously essential to the future of Washington, D.C., to put it bluntly. And the level and detail of the work that your staff has put into them is truly impressive. And I just really look forward to working with all of you in the coming months. But thank you again. If there's nothing else... Last opportunity, would any commissioners like to add anything? Well, then this session is now adjourned. Thank you.