Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning and welcome to the National Capital Planning Commission's March 5th, 2026 open session. First, Madam Secretary, could you please take the roll call?

Yes. Commissioner Cozart? Here. Commissioner Schaffer?

Here.

Commissioner Stidham? Here. Commissioner Argo? Here. Vice Chairman Levenbach? Chairman Scharf?

Present.

Commissioner Blair? Commissioner Ingrassia?

Here.

Commissioner Dixon?

Present.

Commissioner Cash? Commissioner Henderson?

Present.

Commissioner McGowan? Present. Marcela Costa, Executive Director, and Diane Sullivan, current Planning Division Director, are also in the meeting. With those present, Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum to proceed.

Thank you, Megan. Noting the presence of a quorum, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Since we're virtual today, I don't have a gavel to bang on the desk, but I hope you will all duly consider this meeting now proceeding. Today's meeting is live streamed and will be available, as is our custom, in a few days on the NCPC website. One change to the agenda. I'd note that the title basin development concept plan, which was previously scheduled to be considered during our open session today, has been withdrawn by the applicant. So that's been removed from the agenda. And with that change, if there's no objection, the agenda as posted and now amended is adopted as the order of business. Is there an objection? I should ask. I apologize. Hearing none, the agenda is adopted as the order of business. Again, because we're virtual, we will now play a short video clip of the Pledge of Allegiance.

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 and justice for all.

Thank you. As you're all aware, today's meeting is being conducted completely virtually. I want to share how we'll be conducting commission business in light of that. Following staff presentations and any other testimony, I'm going to ask for a motion and a second as appropriate. During commission deliberations, we're going to be using a round-robin format, so I will ask each commissioner in turn if they have any comments. But obviously, if any commissioner wants to be heard at any time, just unmute yourself and ask, and we'll obviously recognize you, and you'll have a chance to speak. With that, I think our next item on the agenda is the report of the chair, which is me. As I announced at the previous meeting, we're doing this meeting virtually today in order to ensure that the public has an opportunity for full comment. on the ballroom project. There's obviously been significant public interest in the east wing modernization project that we have on the agenda. I think it's very important that as many people as possible have the opportunity to be heard on a project of this importance. And a virtual meeting allows us to facilitate that public comment. more effectively and efficiently than having either an in-person or a hybrid meeting would. That's a decision that was arrived at by our executive committee. In making that decision, I relied on the recommendation of staff and also the recommendation of one of our longer serving members, uh... mannington dixon one of them mayors uh... appointed representatives on the commission uh... and on these sorts of things that commissioner dixon has a wealth of knowledge and experience and uh... i was i was uh... pleased to be able to rely on on his counsel uh... as we figured out how to how to make this work as effectively as possible uh... the morning portion of this meeting is expected to conclude before one p m uh... we're gonna tend to move through essentially all the projects on our agenda uh... before we get to the east wing modernization program our project this morning uh... at which point we're going to break uh... and then we're going to uh... resume of a live stream at one p m uh... after that recess and then we'll proceed with uh... i believe it's agenda item sixty the east wing modernization project that uh... that project will obviously it's as we uh... we usually uh... as we usually deal with projects uh... what we're going to hear uh... presentation from ncpc staff uh... followed by remarks from from the applicant team uh... after the presentation remarks uh... commissioners will obviously have the opportunity to ask questions both of staff uh... and of the applicant team uh... and then once we conclude questions i will move into public testimony we have uh... i believe it's about a hundred individuals uh... signed up to speak on the project given that each of those individuals uh... is entitled to three or five minutes depending on nature their testimony uh... that's uh... that's going to take a long time uh... i think it's very important that uh... each of these individuals has the opportunity to speak uh... they've taken the time to sign up other taking times out of the what i would be taking time out of what i would presume a busy schedules uh... to join us uh... and i think it's important that that each or the each of these people are heard uh... as a result we expect that this uh... this meeting will run into tomorrow uh... i don't think we can move through a hundred comments just today uh... i intend to listen to uh... every person uh... who signed up to provide public testimony i'm guessing that many of our commissioners will have to uh... drop in or drop out depending on their other commitments uh... particularly as we get into that uh... tomorrow where we may have sort of a full day fair uh... just hearing testimony on the east wing modernization uh... but one way or the other uh... we're going to make sure that that members the public have the opportunity to be heard on this project uh... and we will uh... will get through this together as a commission and as a team uh... and uh... not for one of them pretty excited to see what uh... what what the day has in store given the amount of the the testimony that we're hearing uh... and large volume of of written comments uh... the commission will not uh... deliberator vote immediately after public testimony as would be our usual procedure uh... instead uh... we're going to take the time to deliberate uh... and we're going to have a final vote uh... on april second twenty twenty six That's our next scheduled public meeting. So I hope that all of my fellow commissioners will take that time between our meetings today and tomorrow and April 2nd to consider, obviously, the applicant team's presentation, NCPC staff's recommendations. uh... the the entire process we've had up until this point and then also the public testimony that we receive uh... in arriving in a decision of how they they uh... end up wanting to vote on this project uh... with all that having been said uh... i think it's also very important to note that uh... the swing modernization project is is an important project It's a very important project, but that shouldn't detract from the other business we have to conduct this morning. We have a number of very exciting projects coming before us, some of which we've seen before. And I, for one, am excited to get down to the business of this commission as we proceed through a fairly busy agenda this morning before we get to the east wing modernization project. That's all I really have. Thank you all for bearing with us. Hopefully we'll keep technical difficulties to a minimum. Zoom hates me historically, so we'll see how that goes. But with that, I'll turn to agenda item three, which as always is the report of our executive director, Marcel Acosta. Marcel.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Arrington.

I just want to let you know I appreciate your clarity in presenting this complicated and very important I'm also pleased that our next meeting to vote on it will not be on the 1st of April, but on the 2nd of April. So with that, thank you for your presentation. That doesn't know how we're going to proceed. Thank you.

I have a long history of April Fool's Day pranks gone horribly wrong, including one time when I fake proposed to a dear friend of mine and my family had a minor freakout. So we're going to avoid April 1st and we'll be back on April 2nd. So Marcel, sorry.

Well, thank you, Chair Scharf, and good morning, Commissioners. Given the length of today's agenda, I only have one announcement. We're pleased to welcome Robert Harris to our staff as an information technology specialist. He'll support the agency's cybersecurity and provide help desk support. Previously, Robert served as an IT contractor supporting federal agencies and also served as a systems administrator. He earned a bachelor's degree in cybersecurity and information assurance from Western Governors University. so welcome aboard Robert uh if you would just say a few uh something some people know who you are on the screen absolutely thanks so much Marcel I'm very happy to join the NCPC team and I look forward to supporting its mission well thank you Robert and now the Commission know where to go for help to support uh during our Commission meeting uh you do have my full report in your packets and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have

Thank you, Marcel, and welcome to the team, Robert. Do any commissioners have any questions for our esteemed executive director? Hearing none, we'll proceed to agenda item four, which is our legislative update presented by our general counsel and secretary, Megan Hoddle-Cox.

I don't have any specific items to provide an update on, but I'm happy to answer questions about pending legislation if commissioners have any.

Do any commissioners have questions for Megan on pending legislative items? uh... hearing none will proceed to agenda item five which is our consent calendar uh... there are two items on this month's consent calendar uh... the first is to approve preliminary and final site development plans for the four quarters temporary fence project uh... the second is to approve preliminary and final visit building plans uh... for the wireless communications equipment installation at the national museum of natural history Are there any questions or comments? Mr. Chairman, I move that we adopt the consent calendar. Hearing a motion, is there a second to Commissioner Dixon's motion to adopt the consent calendar? Second. Hearing a motion and a second, is there any discussion on this item? Hearing none, Megan, could you please confirm the motion in the second and take the vote by roll call?

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

Yes.

Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo? Yes. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Ingrassia? yes commissioner dixon yes commissioner henderson yes commissioner mcgowan yes the motion passes

uh... thank you megan uh... with that we turn to our three open session items on this morning's agenda uh... the first is agenda item six a uh... which is a request to approve preliminary and final building plans for the washington union station uh... lighting upgrades really excited about this project that loved it when they came in for concept and i'm excited to see uh... what they have in store for us uh... with that i think we have lee webb presenting for us we are you are you with us

Yes. Can you all see my screen and can you hear me?

Loud and clear.

Great. Thank you. So, good morning, Chairman Scharf and members of the Commission. The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation has submitted preliminary and final plans for proposed improvements to the lighting at Washington Union Station located at 50 Massachusetts Avenue Northeast in Washington, DC. This submission outlines upgrades to both interior and exterior lighting systems. However, as a reminder, NCPC's review is limited to the exterior improvements. The Commission provided comments on the concept plans at their December 4, 2025 meeting, expressing support for the overall project intent. Since the concept review, the applicant has responded to the Commission's comments and today I will share with you the revisions for this final plan. The applicant has decided not to pursue color lighting as part of these upgrades and the current project will be limited to white lighting that conforms to NCPC's lighting policy. Here you can see circled in yellow Union Station and its location at the intersection of Massachusetts, Louisiana, and Delaware Avenues just north of the U.S. Capitol Complex and the National Mall. The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation oversees the station's operations, which also includes maintaining the station as a multimodal transportation center and supporting retail and amenities within the station. As I mentioned in December, Washington Union Station is the second busiest station in the Amtrak network. The station is an important capital gateway announcing entry into the capital city as designated in NCPC's Urban Design Element in the Comprehensive Plan. This project would help advance Executive Order 14252, making the District of Columbia safe and beautiful, as it would ensure federal buildings and lands are adequately uplit and help beautify public spaces. Here is a current view of the station at night from Massachusetts Avenue. The team's design approach for the lighting upgrades is guided by three foundational objectives to improve public safety and security, improve energy efficiency, and improve architectural enhancement. Here is a rendering shown to the Commission in December with the proposed lighting upgrades. The Commission requested the applicant refine the lighting approach for the front facade of the station to provide some differentiation in brightness and contrast. And here is a new rendering showing the applicant's revision with a clear differentiation of the lighting and modified contrast at the station's main entrance. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission finds that the applicant has responded to the Commission's request to refine the lighting approach to ensure the front facade of the station provides some distinction in brightness and contrast while minimizing light loss and spillage. In December, the Commission requested the applicant to look at the possibility of lighting the barrel vault of the station as it's a key architectural element of the building. This rendered view shows the sidewalls of the barrel vault with new lighting that allows the feature to be perceived at night. Here is another view looking east towards the station showing the sidewalls of the barrel vault as lighted. And so staff recommends that the Commission supports the applicant's approach to lighting of the barrel vault of the station as an architectural element by illuminating the sides of the vault structure without creating excessive lighting over the whole roof of the barrel vault. As a reminder, here are images showing the lighting as it exists and as proposed in the colonnade along the front of the station. and within the carriage porch area on the west side of the station. Overall, staff believes the proposed lighting enhancements will improve safety at Washington Union Station for visitors and users, and will also allow for the architectural features to be more appreciated and understood, while noting that the current project is limited to white lighting. As such, staff recommends that the Commission approves the preliminary and final building plans for lighting upgrades at Washington Union Station. Also, staff recommends that the applicant continue to coordinate with the National Park Service, the District Department of Transportation, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority regarding any improvements proposed within those adjacent areas of jurisdiction. We appreciate the applicant's responses to the Commission's previous comments. As I've covered the Executive Director's recommendations in my presentation, I will not repeat them, but they're here for reference. And at this time, I'd like to introduce Doug Carr with the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, who would like to say a few words to the Commission. Also with Doug is Brian Gaffney with the design team, and they're here to help answer any questions the Commission may have. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Lee. Doug, are you with us? I am. Can you hear me? Loud and clear. Good morning.

I'm Doug Carr, President and CEO of Union Stationway Development Corporation. I'd like to begin by thanking the commissioners and staff for your time and thoughtful engagement throughout this review process. We are pleased to return today seeking preliminary and final submission approval. Union Station is truly a unique and vital place. It is the only building within the Monumental Core that remains open to the public 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It serves the district as a primary multimodal transportation hub for residents, workers, and visitors alike. It is also one of the most recognizable landmarks in the Monumental Core, helping to orient people as they move through and around the area. As noted, our three primary objectives have remained consistent. First, to improve public safety and security in and around the station by creating a more welcoming environment for all. Second, to reduce energy consumption through the use of focused LEDs, optics, and modern lighting controls. Third, to enhance and honor the historic character of this iconic building. Since our last appearance before the commission, we have continued refining the design as we advance through the required agency review process. Most notably, we have revised our proposal to include only the 3000K classic white lighting throughout the station. We have also gone through multiple iterations to carefully calibrate brightness and focus for the exterior lighting. The goal has been to respect the building's architectural character without distortion and to ensure that the lighting complements rather than overpowers the surrounding context. Over the past several months, team has worked closely with the national park service the u.s commission of fine arts the district of columbia historic preservation office and then cpc staff through the established section 106 process with the district of columbia historic preservation office we have received a determination of no adverse effect on march 4th of this year at the february 19th 2026 meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, we also received a unanimous final approval for our submission. In addition, we have secured approvals from the Federal Railroad Administration, the District Department of Transportation, the District Department of Energy and Environment, and Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority. Through close collaboration with each of these agencies, the result is an elegant, balanced, and precise lighting designed for Union Station. that enhances public safety reduces energy consumption and celebrates the station's enduring presence within the monumental core thank you very much for your consideration and we respectfully request your support and approval of our lighting projects uh thank you doug um do any commissioners have any questions uh for the applicant team or for our staff mr chairman yes uh commissioner dixon i

I know this is not a process thing, but I wanted to move it so we can have it before us for discussion and any changes we might want to make. So I'll make a motion that we move this forward, please.

Thank you, Commissioner. So there's a motion on the table. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Tammy. We have a motion and a second. I guess we should open it up to the Commission for discussion now. Tammy, I saw that you had a question.

Just one question for Mr. Carr. It sounds like that you have all of your approvals lined up. So I'm just curious about your timeline for implementation. Do you have the funding that you need to execute this project?

we're currently working to secure the funding um as part of our strategy we do have all the approvals pending this uh report and we would be looking to get uh into construction uh within the next couple months uh delivering uh perhaps sometime early next year so we're very eager to kind of move this forward and we're ready to go i'm sure i'm sure thank you very much that is all chairman i have

Awesome. Are there any other questions? If not, I'll proceed sequentially through the commissioners so that everyone will have an opportunity to be heard on this project. Hearing none, I'll start deliberations with Commissioner Cozart.

Good morning. Appreciate that presentation. Thank you, Mr. Carr, for being here. And I don't have any additional questions or comments.

Thank you, Commissioner Cozart. Commissioner Schaefer?

Good morning. I have nothing further. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Stidham?

Thank you for the presentation and thank you for this project, frankly. I think what is being proposed is exquisite. I think it highlights this really marvelous architecture in a way that is subtle but yet commanding of the location to where it sits. And we'll really focus on the significant structure. So very well done. I appreciate the white lining. I really appreciate the getting rid of the colored suggestion. I think that was wise to ditch that. So thank you. Thank you. I think it is beautiful. And I wish you the very best in getting the funding together so that you can implement as soon as possible. I'll really highlight the Columbus Plaza Fountain Project, which... is going great gangbusters, so thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo? Commissioner Argo, I think you're muted.

Well, how about that? There we go. I'd like to associate myself with Commissioner Stidham's comments right before me. I really appreciate this. This is exciting to see it move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Argo. Vice Chairman Levenbach.

thanks for the presentation i i really can't embellish on the the prior uh two comments that i think it's going to be a great project and i hope it can be brought to completion soon uh thank you vice chairman levinbach uh is commissioner blair with us i don't see him um so we'll proceed to uh commissioner ingracia

Thank you. Yeah, I want to just echo the comments from my other commissioners on the panel. Union Station is, of course, one of the crown jewels, and I think the DC architecture portfolio right alongside the Capitol building, the White House, and I think this lighting project really brings out key features that have long been perhaps not quite accentuated in the way that this project will highlight. So I really appreciate this, and I wish everyone the best of luck.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple more comments. One is my refrain. First of all, I don't want to impede or affect the eloquence of the project, but I got to ask whether or not the solar using any solar services, you spoke consistently about the energy savings, energy, energy, but the solar would help us a lot. in time and particularly with the expanse of the tracks and more overhead, any soil we can get in, it's like free energy being given to us. We can capture it, store it, and use it. So I wonder whether that had been considered or is it possible at this time without impeding or affecting the eloquence of the project?

Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. That is slated for review and study as part of the broader expansion project. We would agree with you. We have tremendous amount of roof area, and that is something that will be evaluated in future project scopes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. Commissioner Cash? Is Commissioner Cash with us?

He is not.

Okay. Then we'll proceed with Commissioner Henderson.

I would just say that I think this project is sorely needed, and it is good to see it moving forward. You probably can't see it behind me, but Union Station is just behind me in that window, and so I can see it every day. One, this is really going to enhance the facility and make it truly nice to look at, but the safety aspect of it cannot be stressed enough, too, and how that is going to improve things on the ground. So I think this can't come soon enough.

Thank you, Commissioner Henderson. Commissioner McGowan.

Thank you all so much for the presentation. I don't have any additional comments at this time, but thank you all so much for your time and the presentation.

uh... thank you commissioner galley i figured we would get some positive comments from our friends over on the hill given the the proximity of the project to add to their their stomping ground uh... speaking for myself uh... i just wanna say a few things first of all uh... i think we've seen uh... i was very excited about this project when it first came before commission uh... i'm even more excited about it now i think the addition of lighting to the barrel vault is a huge improvement on what was already a great plan. As I said when this came before us, I believe it was for concept, I think the care that's been given to preserving historic light fixtures, or at least the character of historic light fixtures in the area around Union Station is really quite remarkable. I think both from a safety perspective, a beautification perspective, uh... really however you look at it uh... this project is an absolute win uh... and i would echo the comments other commissioners that matter earlier that uh... i just hope that the project team can uh... can get in and and get this done quickly uh... i'd obviously fully supportive of uh... of this project and i'm really excited to see uh... union station which is commissioner grassy said is really one of the crown jewels of the federal property portfolio here I really see Union Station beautified in this way and elevated certainly in a way that will allow its architectural features to really shine through in beautiful new lighting. With that, are there any other further questions or comments from any commissioners present? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, could you please confirm the motion and the second and then take the vote by roll call?

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

Yes.

Commissioner Stidham?

Yes.

Commissioner Argo?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Ingrassia?

Yes.

Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Commissioner McGowan? Yes. Motion passes.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Next on the agenda, we have agenda item 6B, which is a request to approve comments on the draft Glen Echo Management Plan amendment. And I believe we have Stephanie Free to present on this project.

Yes. Can you see me and hear me?

I can see and hear you loud and clear.

Great. Thank you. Good morning Chairman Sharp and Commissioners. The National Park Service requests comments on the draft Glen Echo Park Management Plan or Master Plan amendment for Glen Echo Park located in Montgomery County, Maryland. The Commission provided comments on the conceptual master plan in February of 2025. Since then, NPS has developed a draft environmental assessment and master plan, which we are commenting on today. It is anticipated that the final master plan and finding of no significant impact will be submitted later this spring or early summer for our review. As I mentioned, today we are looking at the park's draft master plan. At the draft review stage, the Commission should be focused on issues such as programmatic needs and proposed uses, site circulation and linkages to surrounding context, historic and environmental influences and issues, prominent views and viewsheds, and if the master plan creates any offsite impacts. Before I discuss the draft master plan, I'll begin with an overview of the site context and some existing conditions for orientation. The 0.9-acre park is located adjacent to the Clara Barton National Historic Site, northwest of the district along the Potomac River in Montgomery County, Maryland. The park has 13 resident arts and culture organizations located on the campus and sees approximately 350,000 visitors annually. The site is home to 30 buildings of varying ages, styles, paths, and picnic areas. This plan shows the arrangement of the existing structures, including an arcade, former pool, dance hall, carousel, yurts, and a bumper car pavilion, all of which are currently utilized as facilities for art and culture programming, including art studios and classes, children's art and play spaces, performance space, and dance halls. Here we have a closer look at the site's master plan boundary. For purposes of this graphic and throughout the presentation, the plan is rotated with north pointing to the upper left. The Minnehaha Creek separates Glen Eccle Park from the Clara Barton Historic Site, where visitor parking is shared between the two facilities and accessed via a footbridge. Most visitors arrive to the park by car where they can park during operating hours at the shared lot or in an existing lot along MacArthur Boulevard. on the weekends. The park is also serviced by the County Ride-On Bus Route 29, whose stop is located near the north end of the site along MacArthur Boulevard. Glen Echo Park is a National Register National Historic District. Several character-defining contributing resources include the original park entrance, the arcade building, the Chautauqua Tower and Yellow Barn, the Cuddle Up Pavilion, Spanish Ballroom, bumper car pavilion, the picnic grove, the crystal pool entry facade, and the carousel as seen in the images here. There are several arrival viewsheds on access with the centrally located carousel that welcome visitors to the park from the parking overlook, the primary pedestrian entrance path, and the original Glen Echo Park entrance portal. In addition to cultural resources, there are also important natural resources within the plan boundary, including the Minnehaha Creek and woodland, which I mentioned separates Glen Echo Park from the Clara Barton National Historic Site. And now I will review the draft master plan and this next section of the presentation. So while the site is relatively small, it is very popular for cultural activities and all existing facilities are fully utilized, leaving no unused building space that allows for additional public programming. It is also an important historic facility and the master plan will help NPS and the other users balance increasing demands, historic preservation, and future needs. As I mentioned earlier, the Commission provided comments on the concept master plan in February 2025, which included two alternatives with different areas for buildable zones where building development or outdoor hardscape improvements may be appropriate. NPS selected to advance alternative two, which restores some of the centralized development that existed historically when the park functioned as an amusement park and includes an additional pedestrian connection across the Minnehaha Creek and woodland between the park and the shared parking lot. Overall, staff supports advancing Alternative 2 in the Draft Master Plan as it will enhance the visitor experience through improved site access and circulation, limits demolition to non-contributing features, and identifies development and strategic locations that respects the views of the park's unique features. Here we have a closer look at the preferred alternative. The blue zones on the map suggest the area may be developed with a one to two story building, and the green zones may include exterior landscape and hardscape improvements. The buildable zones do not include building footprints, square footages, and massing. Additional design development will follow completion of the master plan to determine these elements. Therefore, staff recommends that NPS consider programming and building space needs holistically during the design phase, rather than individually by project, so that anticipated increases to visitors, traffic, and parking demand can be addressed at the appropriate phase of development. And overall, staff finds the demolition of the existing yurts, pottery kiln, and restroom facility located at the center of the park And replacement with a one to two story building will provide needed program space and help frame the arrival view sheds to the center of the park and historic carousel. And here we have some views of the areas identified as buildable zones in the draft master plan. Overall staff supports utilizing these previously disturbed areas for potential future development, which will result in fewer impacts on historic and cultural resources. The draft master plan includes a high-level analysis of impacts to these resources and other topics such as vegetation, transportation, and parking as previously requested by the Commission. Additional analysis and mitigation measures will be provided during the design phase when program is better defined, which will influence building footprints and visitor and parking demand. One feature I would like to highlight is the Crystal Pool Complex. Constructed in 1931, the pool remained a central feature of Glen Echo Park through the mid-20th century until its partial demolition in the early 1980s due to deterioration and funding limitations. At the time of its completion, it was the largest public swimming pool in the Washington DC area and served as a major recreational attraction for several decades. The draft master plan indicates this buildable zone would be treated to accommodate a subsurface building within the existing below grade cavity with exterior hardscaping and outdoor programming space at the grade level that references the historic level changes and spatial organization of the site. And staff finds the proposed creative reuse of the crystal pool for hardscape outdoor program space is a unique opportunity for visitors to experience this historic feature and will be a valuable addition to the parks program and landscape. Staff also finds the original Glen Echo Park entrance portal and the adjacent Chautauqua Tower, Yellow Barn, and the trolley right of way are unique features that contribute to the park's character and cultural significance. The entrance was established for the 1891 Chautauqua, demarcated with the preserved stone tower that remains in use today as an artist's studio. When the site transitioned to an amusement park in 1899, the entrance served as a terminus for the Georgetown Trolley Line, and the Art Deco signage was added in 1940. A reproduction of the original entry portal's 1940s sign and entrance structure was completed in the early 2000s, as seen here in the top images. The original entrance portal today is considered a secondary entrance to the park as visitors primarily park on the west side of the site in the shared lot. However, the original entrance portal serves the visitors from the MacArthur Boulevard Trail and permitted employees and weekend visitors who park in the north lot. The area surrounding the original entrance portal and adjacent features is a narrow cartway abutted by a sloped landscape buffer. The cartway consists of concrete and asphalt paving and is used for service and drop-off, with handicapped parking and limited permit parking. Overall, staff finds the surface parking, disjointed paving materials, and limited space for pedestrians in this area detract from the quality of the visitor experience and the historic significance of the site. and therefore recommends the master plan include this area as a suggested exterior space buildable zone with enhancements that would support seasonal public events enhance the visitor experience and celebrate the park's unique history And lastly, the draft master plan also includes stormwater management and accessibility improvements to reduce localized flooding and improve connectivity throughout the park by meeting ABA standards. To further support connectivity and the plan's goal of better serving the regional population, staff recommends the applicant continue coordinating with the local transportation agencies as building zones are further designed and future programming is identified regarding potential improvements to physical connections between the park, bus and bikeway facilities along MacArthur Boulevard and public transportation operating hours to better align with park program. So in summary, staff recommends the Commission approve the comments on the Draft Master Plan for Glen Echo Park, which have been incorporated into my presentation. I would now like to introduce Maureen Joseph, Resource Management Division Manager with the George Washington Memorial Parkway, who is online and would like to make a few remarks. Thank you.

All right. Good morning, everybody. Hopefully my audio is working. I am Maureen Joseph, Resource Management Division Manager for the George Washington Memorial Parkway. I'm also joined by Christine Bruins. She's the Planning Portfolio Manager for the National Capital Region of the National Park Service. As presented by NCPC staff Stephanie Free, our preferred alternative for the Glen Echo Park Management Plan Amendment is now open for public comment until March 16th. Clinical Park, revitalized through a successful partnership since 2002, has been transformed from disrepair into a prominent venue for arts, culture, and special events. Due to its success, current facilities are at renewal capacity. This amendment seeks to expand program and event capacity enhance interpretation of the park's history and environment, and maintain and protect the historic character and resources of this unique NPS site. We welcome your feedback and questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Stephanie and Maureen. Do any commissioners have questions either for our staff or for the project team?

Mr. Chairman,

Yes, Commissioner Dixon, I know what's coming.

As my practice, I will move that we adopt this for consideration and deliberation and final action.

Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. With that, we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Stidham. With that, I'll open it to the Commission for discussion, and I'll start deliberations with Commissioner Stidham.

Great. Thank you. And thank you to the NCPC staff for their presentation. As you can see, this is a high level sort of general management plan that really gives us framework for moving forward. So we appreciate the recommendations and the comments of commission staff and look forward to moving forward with the project.

Thank you, Commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Argo?

I have no additional comments except to say this is so exciting. It's one of the first places when I moved to Washington like 40 years ago that I brought my daughter and it's just lovely to see the attention being paid to bringing it back to its elegant former self. Thank you.

thank you commissioner argo uh vice chairman levinbach well thanks for the presentation i've also taken the family there a number of times it's a special place and uh there's always interesting things going on at the park so um i appreciate the effort that's been put into this plan thank you thank you vice chairman levinbach uh commissioner blair i don't think is with us uh so commissioner ingracia

Thank you for the presentation. I'd like to, again, associate with my other fellow commissioners on the panel. I think it's great that we're revitalizing the key piece of Americana. This park has been around for over 100 years. And the fact that we're able to get it back to to to its former uh you know grant um presentation with all its historic value i think is is a really really phenomenal um achievement and um i just want to echo you know my fellow commissioners and um wish you all the best in this project thank you commissioner ingracia uh commissioner dixon no comments thank you commissioner dixon commissioner cash

not present not present i apologize commissioner henderson nothing to add uh thank you commissioner commissioner mcgowan i don't have any additional comments but thank you for the presentation thank you commissioner mcgowan uh commissioner cozart i just want to commend the park service on really strong progress and an important project um and thank the staff for the presentation no additional comments thank you commissioner cozart uh commissioner schaefer

Hi, thank you. Great presentation. I have nothing else to ask or add. Thank you so much.

uh... thank you commissioner schaefer uh... i'm actually is speaking for myself i'm i'm really excited about this project uh... one of the glen echo park has a fascinating history uh... it is i believe the subject of the seminal supreme court case griffin v maryland which was a key fourteenth amendment equal protection case uh... in insert the desegregation era uh... that was like my previous experience of glen echo park i've never actually been there myself um but uh but looking at the plan um looking at that sort of what we have in front of us i think it's really exciting um that a historical resource like this is being um is being looked at uh that a real plan for improvement and hopefully restoring it to past glory uh is in the works um as always i'd like to thank our staff and and stephanie in particular uh for their uh traditional care and uh and attention um to uh to the projects coming before us And I'd also like to thank the applicant team for obviously, first of all, taking an interest in this property. And second, coming up with at least the beginnings of a plan that I think are really exciting and can revive a key regional resource. So with that, if there are no further questions or comments from the commission, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion in second and then take a vote by roll call?

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

Yes.

Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo? Yes. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Ingrassia?

Yes.

Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Commissioner McGowan? Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. With that, I believe we're moving on to agenda item 6C, which is a request to approve comments on the draft only support center area development plan. And from our team, we have Jamie Herr presenting.

Yes. Good morning.

Hey, Jamie.

All right. Can you see the screen?

Yeah.

Great. Good morning, Chair Scharf and Commissioners. The U.S. Department of the Navy has submitted the draft master plan for the Olney Support Center as part of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division for Commission comment. The site has a long history of government use, starting in 1955 with its development as a launch site for the Nike Missile Program. After it was decommissioned, the site was used by several government agencies, with the most recent tenant being FEMA. In 2019, the General Services Administration transferred the site to the Navy to become the only support division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center . The Navy initiated the master planning process in 2023 with the first public release draft completed in 2024. The applicant is seeking the Commission's comments on the first draft master plan for the site and staff recommends the Commission commend the United States Department of the Navy for initiating the master plan process for this newly acquired site. As noted, today we are looking at the draft master plan. At this stage, the Commission should be focused on issues such as programmatic needs and proposed uses, site circulation and linkages to the surrounding context, historic and environmental influences and issues if applicable, prominent views and viewsheds, and if the master plan creates any off-site impacts. The site is located in Montgomery County, Maryland. It is surrounded by farms, rural businesses, and large-lot single-family homes. As previously noted, the site has a long history of federal use starting in the 1950s. The most recent federal agency to occupy the site prior to the Navy was the FEMA Alternate Operations Center, part of the U.S. National Warning System and the FEMA National Radio System. There are only a handful of buildings remaining on the site from previous uses as noted here. Other previous government tenants and users included the Centers for Disease Control, National Archives, Secret Service, Executive Office of the President, and the State Department. The existing site is 80 acres consisting mostly of open fields with tree stands at the perimeter and along the stream corridor at the eastern edge. The stream is a tributary of the Patuxent River and has water quality restrictions. The state has provided the applicant with guidance on how to properly develop the site without negatively impacting the stream corridor. Upon entry into the restricted area, the road forks. To the east, the road provides access to a loading dock, the wastewater treatment plant, storage and lay down areas, and a chilled water plant. To the north, the road provides access to a vehicle maintenance shop, the helicopter pad, building one, and the main parking lot. A dirt road encircles the area outside of the restricted fence and most of the installation perimeter except along the eastern boundary where the dirt road travels along the edge of the wooded area. To determine the developable areas of the site, the applicant analyzed the constraints available. As you can see in the map enlargement, the area around the existing site is either least constrained or partially constrained. The small strips showing as most constraints surrounding the existing site are berms and steep slopes built up around the installation. The applicant developed a vision for the Olney site and a set of project goals to guide development. The vision and goals focus on a site that supports the mission at Carderock in a flexible and adaptable way with future opportunities, reduces redundancy, and maintains resource stewardship, community relations, and employee quality of life. As I noted, this site has been in federal use for many decades, but this is the first master plan, and staff recommends the Commission approves the following comments on the draft Area Development Plan for the Olney Support Center as part of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division. Based on the developable areas analysis and the goals for the site, the applicant team created three courses of action, or COAs. During development of the COAs, stakeholder preference was for compact development near existing facilities to benefit from shared parking, minimal infrastructure investment, and creating an efficient, walkable site. During the early planning process, stakeholders decided COA development would not include a full build-out scenario. COA 1, shown here, is referred to as the known requirements COA and includes the new project P353 battery testing facility, a temporary accelerated corrosion control facility, a new water line, expanded security perimeter, and a new access road. COA 2 is referred to as moderate development and includes two additional development parcels for future projects, in addition to the projects included in COA 1. The sites are located close to existing development to assure a compact and efficient layout. No additional projects are identified currently for these two sites. The final COA is COA 3, which was described as aggressive development and includes all the projects from COAs 1 and 2 with additional projects necessary to meet the expanded capacity. These additional items include additional development parcels for a total of six, including the battery testing site, a permanent storage facility, a new loop road, a second entry control point, truck inspection station, and expanded wastewater treatment facility. Stakeholders for the project selected COA1 to serve as the basis for the preferred alternative. Given the research and testing nature of the mission, participants saw the most value in COA1 as it represents the most realistic option for known requirements and meets the established goals and objectives. This alternative does outline the potential for future development as indicated by the Future Development Parcel outlines. The layout of the preferred alternative is similar to COA 1, but the battery testing building has shifted southeast, and as such, staff recommends that Commission supports that the design focuses new development at the southern end of the site near the entrance and avoiding sprawling development with larger footprints in areas that are heavily wooded near the stream or further away from the entrance, the reuse of existing parking and facilities to support the new development, and the addition of new pedestrian paths to access the development. The draft master plan compared the current and future land use on the site. As you can see, the future development sites increases the land use, expanding it in an arc around the current facility. However, other than the battery testing facility, no other projects are identified for the site. While the master plan states the site will comply with local stormwater management requirements for the increase in land use, staff recommends the final master plan include an area-wide stormwater management approach with low impact development techniques that can be incorporated into future projects. The Olney Support Center currently has 121 total spaces for use by employees. Per NCPC's parking guidance and the federal elements of the Comprehensive Plan, Olney should follow a 1 to 2 parking ratio, meaning for every parking space there should be two employees. The anticipated employee count over the next five years is 125 employees, which is approximately a one-to-one parking ratio. As the site is not near any transit options and does not have sufficient employees for car or van pooling, the applicant is recommending no new parking for the battery testing facility and to implement transportation demand management strategies such as car or van pooling in the future as the site reaches a higher employment level. As such, staff recommends that Commission support the applicant's transportation strategy to reuse existing parking spaces for new buildings and implement transportation demand management strategies when onsite employment renders it feasible, as outlined in the Transportation Management Plan. The applicant has also included design guidance for future buildings on the site, in accordance with Navy and DoD guidance. Three of these buildings are included here as examples. The applicant has also included design guidance for future roadways on the site in accordance with Navy and DoD standards. While some of the roadway guidance indicates tree plantings, some do not, and staff encourages the applicant to consider identifying future tree planting areas around the site that can help provide additional screening and shade, such as along driveways and around future buildings. As noted previously, the preferred plan is based on COA-1 and includes a new battery testing facility to support Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division missions. In support of this new facility, the plan also includes a new waterline, new access roadway, and expanded secure perimeter. Finally, the plan includes potential future sites for additional development should the programming need arise. The applicant has coordinated with a variety of state and local stakeholders, but as they continue to revise the master plan, staff recommends the applicant consider the comments received in the preparation of the final master plan and continue to work with applicable stakeholders such as Montgomery County as the master plan is finalized. In conclusion, staff again recommends the Commission approves the comments on the draft Area Development Plan for the Olney Support Center as part of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division. I included the recommendations in the presentation, but they are also here for your reference. That concludes my presentation. Members of the applicant team are here and available for any questions from the Commission. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Jamie. Do any commissioners have any questions for Jamie or I guess for the applicant team that's present as well?

I do, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry, I can't see who that is.

Sorry, it's Commissioner Stidham.

Oh, hey, sorry. Sorry, Commissioner Stidham.

No worries. So it's either for Jamie or the applicant. I just had one question, and it's on the slide related to the preferred alternative. In our packet, it's slide 11, but I'm not sure which slide it is for. your presentation.

Yeah, let me bring that up right now.

Thanks. Okay.

Mr. Chairman.

Yes, Commissioner Dixon.

I was a little slow on my draw, and I may need to be advised by a GSEC, General Counsel and Secretary, off record here, whether or not my position is valid. In my experience, normally you need to have a matter before the body, before you can deliberate, discuss, and talk about it. So you create a front end that says, we're going to move to adopt this with further action and whatever. but we don't have anything before us to discuss unless we make a motion. So maybe I'm wrong, but at this point, I'm gonna make the motion that we at least have this before us for discussion and deliberation.

So I think typically we give commissioners the opportunity to ask questions of the presenters before we formally begin to deliberate as a commission. That having been said, I think your way provides some expedition to the process while still allowing commissioners to comment. So if you'd like to make your customary motion, Commissioner Dixon. I would make that motion.

And also, maybe we can revisit this. We've got a lot of things important before us. But every all discussion and deliberation, I think should be part of the record that's created for an item that's before us. So your question or this or that or the other is related to the action we're taking. And it should be, I think, framed by the adoption, the consideration to adopt and discuss. But I so move, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? that motion is to approve comments on the draft only support center area development plan i i think i heard a second there yes i seconded uh commissioner ingrassi a seconds um with that uh i'll open it up to the commission for discussion i guess commissioner stidham was was uh asking a question or do you want to do you want to start well we'll start out of order i guess tammy do you want to continue

Yes, I can ask my question and move on just to be efficient in our day-to-day. So, here's my question on this preferred alternative. So, if I understand correctly, the course of action number one is the preferred alternative, which is a really compact limited development focused around the areas where there's already existing development. But on this particular graphic, it shows these potential parcels outlined. So is it my understanding that they would move forward with the preferred alternative, but they have identified where they might do amendments to this master plan in the future and where these development areas may be in the future?

I think I understand your question, and I think the answer is yes.

Okay.

Okay.

It was just confusing to me to show like what they're going to move forward to now and then sort of forecasting where they would go in the future. So I was just trying to get some clarity on what they think their course of action number one preferred alternative would be.

Yeah, I think the goal was they know what they need now with the battery testing facility, but they wanted to look out into the future because the Carderock site is so built out. They do anticipate long, long term, probably some needs at this site in the future, but not knowing what those are, they wanted to at least outline the space for

trying to keep that as compact as possible um moving forward and if something changes they would have to come back to us okay that makes that makes great sense thank you and chairman i can go forward with discussion items if if you want or unless there are other questions uh let me uh let me just go in in order here if that's okay uh commissioner stidham um i think commissioner schaefer is up first for deliberations on this uh this item

I have absolutely no question. I think this is a really good job, and I think it's going to help support as this moves forward. So great job. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Schaffer. Now, Commissioner Stidham.

Thank you. First of all, I think that this is a really thoughtful approach to a master plan for a facility. I appreciate that they are focusing new development around areas that are already developed and not trying to lay out the entire site, but thinking about the buffer that is needed around these facilities, what they currently need, And, you know, to my question about those future parcels, also identifying a very compact development that limits it really adjacent. So I really appreciate that and look forward to hearing more about the project.

Thank you, Commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Argo? I think you're muted again, Commissioner Argo. I'm very sorry.

There we go. Sorry. I don't have any additional questions. Thank you. Appreciate the presentation.

Thank you, Commissioner Argo. Vice Chairman Levenbach.

Well, as someone who lives in Gaithersburg, Maryland, this isn't too far away. Certainly, I appreciate the challenges in getting to the facility. I mean, I think that comes through in the staff comments that it's not an area that's really, you know, at this point, at least, can accommodate a lot of traffic. And there's a lot of use, including some bicyclists as well. So I appreciate the thought that went into that and look forward to seeing how this develops.

uh thank you vice chairman levinbach i think commissioner blair is not with us uh commissioner ingracia thank you yeah i don't have any additional comments or questions but i really appreciate a thoughtful presentation uh thank you commissioner ingracia uh commissioner dixon mr chairman i think it's a very important uh project and facility because

batteries are becoming a major concern. They're heating up, getting hot on a plane, whatever, ever. So I'm assuming this testing will help us get further into the more efficient and better ways of using batteries, et cetera, et cetera. So that's great. I do have one question, though. I'm not sure the geography of where we're located. Where is this actually? Help me out a little bit if you can. Stay after telling kind of where this is located in Maryland. Exactly. Kind of.

so uh this is located northwest of only um i think the closest town is actually laytonsville okay all right thank you very much uh thank you commissioner dixon uh commissioner cash i think commissioner cash may not be with us um so commissioner henderson nothing thank you uh thank you commissioner henderson commissioner mcgowan

I don't have any additional comments at this time, but thank you all for the presentation.

Thank you, Commissioner McGowan. Commissioner Cozart.

Appreciate the presentation and no additional comments or questions.

Thank you, Commissioner. Speaking for myself, I'd like to, of course, compliment our staff on their care and dedication to their review of this project and also commend the U.S. Navy for what they're planning here. I'd echo what Commissioner Dixon said, which is that the sorts of functions that are contemplated uh... are are very important uh... and uh... i think this is going to be an exciting project to see uh... c developed going forward uh... as always i would recommended that uh... d o d or do w i should say uh... continues working closely with our staff to ensure that uh... as this project moves ahead uh... that it is as uh... as as well articulated and as uh... as effective uh... as possible And with that, are there any further questions or comments from any commissioners before we proceed to a vote? Hearing and seeing none, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and the second and then take a vote by roll call?

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

Yes.

Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo? Yes. Yes. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Ingrassia?

Yes.

Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Commissioner McGowan? Yes. The motion passes.

uh... thank you madam secretary uh... with that uh... we're going to take a recess uh... before we take up a consideration of agenda in sixty uh... which is the east wing modernization project uh... we're going to reconvene at one p m as we've previously discussed uh... i hope everybody uh... fortifies themselves with a with a good lunch in the interim and we will uh... we'll see you all back in a couple hours uh...

Thank you, Eddie. Commissioners, just remember to use the second Zoom link for this afternoon's session if you need that. If you haven't found it, feel free to let us know and we'll make sure you have that.

Perfect. Thank you, Megan. And we will see you all shortly. Thank you very much. Welcome back, everyone. It is now 1 p.m. on the button, and the National Capital Planning Commission is reconvening our March 5th, 2026 meeting as planned and scheduled. Before we get started, Madam Secretary, can you please take the roll call?

Yes. Commissioner Cozart? Here. Commissioner Schaffer?

Here.

Commissioner Siddham? Here. Commissioner Argo?

Here.

Vice Chairman Levenbach? Chairman Scharf?

Present.

Commissioner Blair? Commissioner Ingrassia?

Present.

Commissioner Dixon? Commissioner Dixon? Come back, he may be having audio issues. Commissioner Mendelson? Commissioner Henderson?

Present.

Commissioner McGowan? Here. Marcela Acosta, Executive Director, and Diane Sullivan, current Planning Division Director, are also in the meeting. And with those present, Mr. Chairman, we do have a quorum.

Great. Thank you, Megan. Noting the presence of a quorum, this meeting is now in session once again. Before we get started and proceed to agenda item 6D, I do want to note one thing. In our interim, while we were off the air, I saw that the Washington Post is out with an article The Post's article is just incorrect in its facts. If they'd reached out to me personally, I would have corrected them, but they didn't. The Post indicates that we delayed consideration of the ballroom or we delayed our final vote on the ballroom. uh... owing to uh... unexpected public comments ur something of that nature uh... that simply incorrect uh... our plan has been to proceed to final vote on this project uh... on april second for quite some time uh... part of the reason we scheduled things that way was because we anticipated public comment on this project and that's uh... totally normal and proper it's the way that this commission has uh... has dealt with similar projects before But for the post to say that the vote was supposed to be today or that the vote was scheduled for today but was delayed until April is simply incorrect. And I wanted to note that for the record before we proceed. That having been said, we can now move on to agenda item 6D, which is a request to approve preliminary and final site and building plans for the east wing modernization project. As is customary, NCPC staff will begin with a presentation, and then I believe we also have Shalom Baranis, the architect on this project, with us as well. I think, Matt, are you the one who's presenting this one? That's correct. Okay, Matt, if you want to proceed, let's roll.

Okay, great. OK, I hope you can see the presentation and hear me. Loud and clear. OK, great. Good afternoon, members of the commission. The executive residence at the White House has submitted preliminary and final site and building plans for the proposed East Wing modernization project, which is going to be located on the grounds of the White House. You recall that you last heard an information presentation on this project back in January of this year. The purpose of the project is to establish a permanent, secure event space within the White House grounds that provides increased capacity for official state functions. So I think everybody's familiar with the location of the White House, but just for your reference, here is a map view showing President's Park and the surrounding context with the National Mall located at the bottom of the screen. The project is proposed to be located between the Executive Mansion and the Treasury Building marked here with the yellow star. So in terms of the overview for today, I'm going to start with a little bit of history of the site, walk through the project background, then provide an overview of the design, walk through the analysis and conclude with a summary of the recommendations. So starting with history of the site, of course, I think everybody is familiar with the iconic executive mansion. This is what most people think of when you mentioned the White House shown here on the screen. But it is important to note that over the years, US presidents have renovated, expanded, and modernized the White House and its grounds. Here are just a few images showing the property as it has changed over time with President's Park here on the left, and then an example of varying additions to the grounds with some greenhouses shown here on the right. There have been more substantial changes, obviously, like the addition of the West Wing, or even the reconstruction of the mansion by President Truman. Even the East Wing went through several iterations, the most recent version of which dated to 1942 and was demolished in 2025. As a reminder, the Commission does not have review authority over demolitions. So moving on to the proposed project, the Comprehensive Design Plan for the White House and President's Park, which was prepared in 2000, identified the need for expanded event space to address growing visitor demand and provide a venue suitable for significant events. To meet this need, as part of the current project, the applicant outlined three functional goals for any permanent event space. This included immediate adjacency to the White House Executive Mansion, a direct ceremonial procession from the East Room into the venue, and an enclosed second-story access from the executive mansion. The intent is to create a permanent, secure event space within the White House grounds that provides increased capacity for official state functions, eliminates reliance on temporary tents, temporary support facilities, and the infrastructure strains that are associated with them. According to the applicant, the White House cannot host large events without resorting to the installation of large, unsightly tents, which impact the cultural landscape and the architectural integrity of the area. These installations impact the infrastructure and landscaping while diminishing the overall visitor experience. As noted by the application, the design team evaluated various sizes and configurations for the project. The environmental assessment prepared by the National Park Service also notes that multiple locations layouts and design concepts were considered ultimately because these alternatives did not meet the purpose and need identified by the applicant. They were dismissed from further study. So moving on to the project design, the project area is generally, again, east of the executive mansion, west of East Executive Drive, south of Pennsylvania Avenue, and north of Hamilton Place. The main ballroom is connected to the mansion by a new colonnade. And here's a more detailed site plan with a project footprint in gray. The program, again, includes a ballroom of approximately 22,000 square feet designed to accommodate approximately 1,000 seated guests. The total area of the two above-ground visible floors, including the new colonnade and ballroom, is around 89,000 square feet. The program includes event space as well as related uses like a commercial kitchen, office suite for the First Lady, and a replacement movie theater. So here are the site elevations from the north and the south with the context, including the executive mansion in the center and the adjacent buildings, including the Eisenhower Executive Office building and the main treasury building. As I mentioned, a colonnade connects the mansion to the new ballroom. It is lower in height to provide a sense of hierarchy and separation from the residence. As you can see, the context includes a variety of scales and heights and building styles with the executive mansion as its central focal point. Importantly, the project will not exceed the height of the mansion, which is approximately 60 feet. So moving on to the analysis, I think you're aware that the Commission has reviewed a number of projects at the White House and vicinity, including the White House fence in 2016 and 2017 as shown here. And NCPC has also worked on initiatives like the redesign of the portion of Pennsylvania Avenue immediately north of the grounds in the early 2000s. In these cases, the Commission evaluates projects at the White House and vicinity in terms of the impact on visitor experience from the surrounding public spaces. Comprehensive plan policies related to urban design, visitors, parks and open space, and historic preservation are also considered. I will note, however, that the White House and grounds are exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act, and therefore the Section 106 process does not apply. So why is the focus on visitor experience important? Well, it establishes how we think about the visual frame within which the White House sits and which is called out in the comprehensive plan. The points from where the public can generally view the complex are typically are generally along and outside this dashed line. This includes Pennsylvania Avenue to the north, 17th Street, 15th Street, and E Street to the south. From here, the public can see the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the Treasury Building, and views to the north and south of the Executive Mansion. Much of the rest of the campus is heavily screened or set back from the surrounding streets. Given this, staff grounded the analysis in terms of understanding what the visitor will see as they approach the White House complex within public space. Key viewsheds are, again, primarily from Pennsylvania Avenue to the north, as shown here, and East Street to the south, as shown here. You'll notice in these and other images how intentional the landscape is in framing these views. Staff evaluated the submission materials to understand how these views will be seen by pedestrians at ground level. I'll note that bird's eye perspectives and renderings from the air and renderings also from inside the fence line, while helpful in understanding the project, are generally not views of the project the public will see or experience. Staff used existing conditions for evaluating the proposal and the context, which includes the White House and grounds, President's Park and the adjacent buildings. Again, the Executive Mansion is that central, iconic and most recognizable part of the White House complex. It exists as a pavilion within a context of a number of other buildings. These include the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which I've mentioned, shown here to the west, along with the Treasury Building to the east. And these are large buildings with different heights and design styles. And as such, our analysis was grounded in this broader setting, which includes a variety of buildings of varying sizes sitting within the larger landscape of President's Park with the executive mansion at the center. For staff, this was important in establishing the context in the visual frame. It was not just about the White House and the wings, but the broader area, a context which is already somewhat asymmetrical and varied. As such, we asked the applicant to prepare a viewshed study of the proposed project from pedestrian-level locations in public space. The applicant provided those views as part of their submission, which staff evaluated, and I'll walk you through some of those views in the next few slides. So first I'll start at the north at Pennsylvania Avenue looking south. These views, both the top and bottom, are similar with just a slightly different angle. The left side shows the project in the setting, and the right image is the exact same view but with the project dashed in red just so you can see it a little bit more clearly. You can see in both of these views that the mansion remains visually the most prominent element in the view. I'll note in both of these images, the bike racks and the fact that on this day, the public was set even further back from the White House due to security. Obviously, this impacts the visitor experience and I'm going to talk a little bit more about this later in my presentation. And just for reference, here's a view with the trees leafed out. These renderings were done within the wintertime, so it was helpful to see that kind of at a worst-case scenario. But you can see here with the leaves on, the landscape really does strongly scream and frame the site today. Again, this is very intentional. The landscape is part of that overall urban design approach to the complex. So on the top here is another view looking southeast towards the project. Again, here you would see the addition and the colonnade, but the landscape and to some extent the topography do provide some screening. The mansion again retains its prominence. the bottom this is a view from further north in lafayette park here again the project is generally not visible it's off to the left of the primary view corridor and the spatial frame of the mansion is retained as one moves further north into 16th street the view is also unaffected primarily due to the existing landscape and then more so the buildings which frame the corridor as you do move further to the north so here is on the south side of the grounds this is a view looking from around east street and the ellipse again here the images on the left and the right are the same with just the building dashed in for reference and the top view again here you see there's limited impacts to that critical view corridor the landscape even in the winter still screens this view and the executive mansion is still in that vocal point I'll note in this top image, again, you're seeing East Street with Jersey walls and the White House fence beyond. Again, visitors are usually restricted to the south side of this line so that your perspective actually includes the perimeter security, temporary elements before you even see the mansion in the distance. The same is true, even more so true as you move further south. This is from the Washington Monument Grounds. or even further away, which is the Jefferson Memorial, looking towards the White House. Again, that key visual connection to the mansion is unaltered. So now moving around to 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. Views of the project would likely be possible from this location, beyond the south facade of the Treasury Building, In this placement, the Sherman Memorial and existing trees are in the foreground. They do provide some screening, but you would likely be able to see portions of the project in the distance. These views of the project would be even less perceptible as you start to move back down Pennsylvania Avenue further to the east. And then, of course, as you move to the US Capitol, this is a view looking down Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol steps. This viewshed would not be impacted as shown by these renderings. The sense of the corridor, that framing that's really provided by the buildings and the landscape is retained. And I think it's important to mention, particularly from 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, that that visual connection between the U.S. Capitol and the White House was already lost with the construction of the Treasury Building in the middle of the 19th century. The portico of the Treasury Building actually projects out. So for many, as you stand in Pennsylvania Avenue, what you're actually seeing is the Treasury Building. The symbolic link, however, that viewshed has been maintained. And as I've mentioned earlier, this is really about framing the entire corridor for the full length of Pennsylvania Avenue. So that is still protected. The symbolic connection would not be altered as part of this project. And so again, as I mentioned, while the view as you look past Sherman Park may change, the framing and the overall importance of that symbolic connection would not change. And then finally, the applicant provided some additional views from other locations around the White House complex. None of these views would be impacted by the project. So, NCPC staff acknowledges the scale of the project. We also note that the applicant has indicated that the program, and therefore the size, is necessary to meet their purpose and need. As such, given the context, including the surrounding buildings, the existing landscape and the setbacks from publicly accessible spaces, the project is unlikely to change that main view, the main views of the executive mansion, as the most recognized portion of the White House complex, particularly from the key locations to the north and the south, where the public has views of the mansion today. Therefore, staff finds that per the viewshed study provided in the submission, the public views of the east wing modernization project will largely be screened by the existing landscape. We also find that per the study, the main views of the executive mansion from E Street to the south and Pennsylvania Avenue to the north will be largely maintained. Now, while the project will have limited, if filtered, visibility for visitors, I did want to briefly talk about the project design. Here are the north and south elevations with the landscape removed so you can see them a little bit more clearly. Again, this is in context with the executive mansion and the adjacent buildings. The design has continued to evolve since the information presentation in January. In particular, after further consultation, the triangular pediment on the south facade was removed. We find this change successful and we support the applicant's removal, which results in a lower building height and a more unified architectural language. The updated design reduces that overall heaviness at the top of the building. We do find that there might be an opportunity to continue to improve the rest of the portico. In particular, the density of columns here on the south side appears to create a heavy and dark facade. So we advise that if there is an opportunity, the applicant continues to refine the South Portico design, including column placement and spacing, to ensure an open inviting area that also allows for improved natural light to the ballroom space, which is immediately beyond. And as noted previously, the project includes a two-story colonnade that connects to the executive mansion. This component provides both a functional role, which is access to the ballroom and other program spaces, as well as a physical and visual one, providing that separation from the mansion and the bulk of the project. It is also the place where the project actually touches the mansion. As the design advances, we suggest that if there's an opportunity, continue to refine the new colonnade design and detailing so that it remains related but architecturally deferential to the executive mansion and to the extent feasible, preserve and integrate elements of the historic facade where the new colonnade touches the mansion. So moving on to the landscape as part of the project, the applicant will restore some plant material as well as landscape elements retained from the East Garden. I'll note that the project will require a reconfiguration of portion of South Lawn Drive. This change does disrupt the symmetry of the driveway. However, further alteration of the driveway loop to establish reestablish symmetry may impact additional trees and landscaping and therefore would not be preferred. Here's an enlarged elevation of the east garden reflecting some of the elements that will be reinstalled as part of the project, including the holly trees, benches, Mount Vernon brick paving, and fountain. Additional plantings can help further reinforce key views and screen areas as appropriate. These plantings could also be reflective of the wide variety of trees and flowering plants found across the country. Therefore, we recommend the applicant continue to explore opportunities to further integrate additional vegetation and trees around the project and across the White House grounds as examples of the beauty of the American landscape. Now moving on, as part of our review, NCPC staff visited the public streets around the White House and President's Park. Temporary perimeter security, including bicycle racks and snow fencing, are commonly used in this area. As I mentioned earlier, the submission materials also include several views that contain these temporary elements. In many ways, these are the most impactful parts of the setting to the visitor experience, as they are unattractive and confusing to navigate. The Commission has reviewed several temporary security installations with the expectation that they would be time-limited until a permanent solution is implemented. However, to date, no permanent solution has been presented to NCPC. These elements add visual clutter and distract from the setting. Thus, consistent with this guidance, upon completion of the East Wing project, the public realm in the vicinity of the White House should be improved to remove these temporary elements and provide a permanent, safe, and beautiful system. This will benefit both visitors to the White House and ballroom and the public at large, which experience these public spaces every day. Further, such enhancements would be consistent with the executive order, making the District of Columbia safe and beautiful. Further, staff finds that the existing use of temporary security elements around the White House, particularly on Pennsylvania Avenue and East Street, continue to detract from the visitor experience and should be improved to help beautify President's Park once the modernization project is completed. A permanent plan for well-designed perimeter security will require coordination among a number of agencies to be successful. The applicant has indicated it will submit individual security projects, both temporary and permanent, throughout the White House complex and the surrounding areas to the Commission in the future. Understanding how all these projects work together to both beautify and protect the area will be important. As such, staff recommends the applicant work with the National Park Service, General Services Administration, U.S. Secret Service, and others to brief the Commission on a comprehensive security and beautification plan for the White House complex, President's Park, and the vicinity that will replace temporary security measures with an attractive, unified permanent design solution without further limiting public access. So, in conclusion, the Commission has historically reviewed projects at the White House in terms of the impact on visitor experience. The viewshed study showed that while the project will still be visible in places, it will not impact the critical views of the executive mansion and its spatial frame. Overall, it's generally consistent with the comprehensive plan. In addition, staff has identified potential design refinements for consideration as the project continues to advance. More importantly, we continue to note that the visitor experience is more directly impacted by the ongoing use of temporary perimeter security, which could be improved and which has been highlighted in the recommendations. Finally, I do want to acknowledge that NCPC has received a substantial number of public comments on this project. The vast majority of comments received were in opposition, and a high percentage raised objections to several components outside of NCPC's purview. For example, many comments raised concerns about the demolition of the former East Wing and funding sources for the project. And while we note these, these are not issues that are germane to NCPC's review or the Commission's action. The comments in opposition also addressed several themes that are relevant to NCPC's review. Some questioned the need for programmatic space. Others raised design issues like height, massing, compatibility, and respect for the executive mansion. Solutions offered in some comments included reconstruction of the east wing or a smaller modified ballroom. NCPC staff did consider these concerns in our review. And then finally, we also did receive some comments and support, which have generally mentioned the programmatic need for permanent space and supported the architectural style. Therefore, to conclude, staff recommends the commission approve the preliminary and final site and building plans for the project with the comments that I've already mentioned throughout the presentation. In addition, we recommend adopting the environmental assessment prepared by the National Park Service for the commission's use. I have not read through all the recommendations. I have already read through all the recommendations, so I'm not going to repeat them here, but they are available for your reference. I'll also mention that the Commission of Fine Arts approved the project on February 19th. That concludes my presentation. I'm now going to turn it over to project architect Shalom Baranis, who will provide some remarks and then also introduce others from the design team who are available to answer any questions.

Thank you, Matthew. That was comprehensive and very insightful. Thanks for your your attention and Shalom.

Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. I want to thank the commission for allowing us to present again today. And I am going to primarily focus on the public experience walking around the White House reservation. And then I'll focus on a couple of architectural changes we've made. And then our landscape architect, Rick Parisi, will conclude with a brief presentation as well. So what I have here up on the screen is this is an animation and we're standing on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the Eisenhower building. And you'll see as we start to run this. We are walking east along Pennsylvania Avenue. The main White House pavilion, the main residence, is coming into view here. And to the left, of course, you can see the ballroom. And I will note again that in all of these animations, we've made the trees as transparent as we could. These buildings won't be quite as visible as is shown here. But I think this particular view, we're just seeing the Treasury, the main Treasury now on the left. But in this particular view, I think you can see pretty clearly how the cornice height of our building of the addition matches the cornice and balustrade of the White House. So now we also have an additional view, a similar animation from the south along East Street here. And we are now walking westward. And the first thing you're seeing here is the ballroom structure. Again, we thinned out the leaves, the trees, made them transparent. And we are looking through the fence. And the White House is just beginning to appear. This, of course, is the iconic view looking north. And now we are coming up just to the rear of the Eisenhower Building. Yeah, the Eisenhower building is just off the frame to the left here. Okay, if we could go to the next image. I have just a couple of images I want to show you to focus on a few of the changes that we've made. Matthew has already pointed out that we did remove the impediment, which would have appeared on the far right-hand side of this drawing. But in addition to that change, we also changed this west elevation by adding one arched window, the one furthest to the left, is a new window. And we did that because we wanted to simplify the north part of this west elevation. It originally was, when we showed it to you last time, a three-part composition, tripartite, and we've simplified that so it's just a two-part composition. You can see the bay here just to the right of the flag. And there's a slight recess there. And then the solid wall, which the punch with the punch windows picks up and carries around the front, basically echoing the same punch window vocabulary that we see on the White House itself. The other change we made here is on this west elevation is to the windows along the lawn on the on the ground floor. We had a different set of windows there with different patterning. We've simplified this also so that basically it now matches the windows under the portico, which are just on the south side of the colonnade connecting the White House to the ballroom structure. And if we go to the next one. This upper elevation has not changed except for the removal of the pediment on the left. It's this lower elevation that has changed. And I just wanted to show you this drawing because it more clearly, I think, shows the change at the northern end where we have the two-part composition with the recess in between the two solid panels. If we go to the file, this is the final one and you're seeing the same thing. Now that same corner here of the ballroom structure as seen from the Pennsylvania Avenue side. And I just wanted to show this to you to show that it does carry the language of the. Dave Kuntz, executive residents. Dave Kuntz, Both on the north side of our ballroom and then that also wraps around the West side so with that i'd like to have rick perisi continue here to to address the landscaping a bit.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Rick Parisi here, NPFP, Landscape Architects. Thanks, Shalom. This is an aerial of the existing conditions with the ballroom and the new East Garden. And if you can see the grand stair and then kind of the patio location, which is the relocated Mount Vernon brick. receiving the grants there. One thing to note in this view is that the East Garden is quite expansive now and extends most of the length of the entire new ballroom. And it does so in making some transitions to the lower level of the ballroom. and the colony at different elevations. And you'll see that in the next plan. One thing I will address here is during the commission fine arts discussion, we were also encouraged to do some additional planting on the other sides of the ballroom, which we are in process of doing now. We have quite a bit of great change there. And we are considering, you know, a good amount of southern magnolias and other materials there to keep in keeping with the design and as Matthew mentioned, the landscape, the diverse landscape that we have on the White House grounds. We have a lot of opportunity there and a lot of great things. You could go to the next one, please. This is an enlargement. And what you see here is you see the Mount Vernon brick, the big large patio receiving the grand stair. Then you have large stone format paving making up the pathways. its connection to the colonnade and the connection to the lower level. The lower level is several feet below the main patio. But what's most striking about this is you see the opportunity to really expand on one of the most beautiful things of the current, the old East Garden with the parterres and extensive annual and perennial plantings. And that extends most of the way to the ballroom now. What you also see here is we've relocated one of the fountains from the east garden. As Matt mentioned, we will be replanting four of the topiary holly trees that have been preserved. They're quite striking. And then we've also relocated four of the cast iron benches within the garden. Go to the next one, please. This is the elevation. You see the topiary, the I-X topiary, symmetrical about the Grand Stair. Landing on the Grand Stair lands again on the mountain burning brick pavers that have been placed in the current garden and were relocated from originally and then we have the stone pavers to either side with the connections to the upper level of of the colonnade and then the lower level of the ballroom and you can start to see the ilex and boxwood hedges and the extensive perennial and annual plantings next this is more of a technical drawing and you can go to the next one please And then just the images of the existing East Garden and the plant material palette that we're bringing forward. Again, the hedges made up of Ilex hedges and boxwood hedges, perennial borders, annual borders, and those wonderful replanted topiary Ilex trees, the cast iron benches, and again, the Mount Vernon brick. And that concludes what we have for the landscape.

Thanks, Rick. So with that, that concludes our presentation, and we're happy to take questions at this point.

Thank you, Shalom and Rick, for that. With that, we'll move to questions from the commission. Do any commissioners have questions for either Matt with our team or the project team?

Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions, but my usual emotions.

uh if you you if you'd like to make a motion commissioner dixon uh i guess move the project forward for consideration deliberation etc okay is there a is there a second i'll second uh thank you commissioner um With that, I guess we'll proceed. I'd rather not go sequentially just through the commission. Let's keep things sort of a bit more open-ended than we normally would. Do any commissioners have questions for the project team? I'll just try to recognize you. I see Commissioner Stidham.

Hi, thank you for the presentation. I have just a couple questions. The public experience outside the gate looking in is really an important part of how the White House grounds are understood and experienced as a national civic landscape. So could you clarify on how the final landscaping design was developed with respect to this public experience outside the gate, including what aspects of the landscape approach are intended to influence visual continuity, screening, and overall site perception from the adjacent public areas?

Want me to take that, Shalom? Sure, go ahead. So I think what Matt exhibited and what Shalom exhibited is that through all the views, you actually cannot see any portions of this new East Garden. But with that said, I think there are plenty of opportunities to embellish some of those views into the gardens, into the other portions of the garden. The goal wasn't screening this garden, it just happens to be behind a lot of large oaks and other evergreen trees, as you can see from the visuals. Right. But but I think the goal we do have is is to kind of recreate some of the splendor that you had in that East Garden and then also break down some of the scale of of the of the building as it lands on the other side of the berm near the treasury. And that's the portion that you really, again, can't see from the public. right but but we will be working uh a little bit more on that side on that berm side and uh and that's where i said you know in discussions with commissioner fine arts we we talked about the you know you know including uh a series of southern magnolias over there so we really have some which which are really prominent on the grounds today and flank the and flank the entry So I hope that answers your question. It's just not so visible from, you know, this garden is not so visible.

So I was thinking less about the garden itself and more about the screening and scaling of the mass on the, what is that, the east side. So I think you've answered that, and that is the detail that you're further looking into. But on the east garden portion, The Mount Vernon brick, I recognize that, but for the other sidewalks, it just says stone pavers. Is this limestone or granite?

I think it's currently going to be selected to work with the building, but I think it is granite. It's not likely limestone. I think it's a grain granite.

OK. And then I had sort of one more question. Nighttime lighting and access and circulation are important parts of this overall site design in the setting. And it's not completely clear to me about those pieces. And given their influence on the public experience, the cohesion of the site, and the long-term operations, could you clarify a bit about the design intent for any exterior lighting how the nighttime lighting would be integrated into the building or the landscape elements, and how is it that this new wing will be accessed in the final design? I know that in your previous session, there was some talk about it coming through the White House in order to access But then there's these two grand staircase, you know, one in the East Colonnade and one in the East Wing itself. So trying to understand how this is being accessed because these two staircases sort of throw me off.

Sure, I'd be glad to address those questions, starting with the lighting. First, I'll note that we have a wonderful lighting designer on board. You may be familiar with Fisher Moran Stone out of New York. They've designed many, many lighting installations for national nationally recognized monuments landmarks. But our overall approach to the lighting is, quite frankly, to keep it quite dim. And the only thing what we're showing in our drawings is a series of sconces between the arched windows, which are mounted to the walls, probably at about around 10 to 12 feet high. You will not see the source of light there, but they'll throw a very, very light pool of light both downward and upward on the white walls. And the only area that we intend to highlight with a little more lighting is the portico on the east side where the columns are. there will have a combination of step lighting as well as some recessed lighting up in the ceiling to throw some light down to that primary entry portal. We will also have low-level landscape lighting around the site, around the structure, and certainly wherever we have stairs, we'll have recessed lighting within the stairs themselves. With regard to access, There are really two primary access points into the ballroom structure. One is off the east side across from the treasury where the portal is, and that will also accommodate handicap access. It will be accessible. The other primary entrance into the ballroom is directly from the White House, from the east room. We are going to modify one of the openings. And by the way, I should note that we are going to be keeping the palladium windows that you see there. It's an iconic element and we are going to preserve that and we don't intend to modify that itself in any way. But so there will be access on the upper level from the east room through the colonnade and then into the grand hall of the ballroom structure. The other stairs that you see off the terraces are primarily for egress purposes. There will be events that will occur. Both will have both an indoor and outdoor component to them. And the idea is that the attendees of these events will be able to access the terrace and then spill down into the lawn through those two stairways that you that you referenced.

Thanks for that. If you don't have anything further, Commissioner Stidham, I think Commissioner Argo, I saw her raise her hand before. I apologize, Commissioner Argo. Do any other commissioners have questions for either our team or the project team?

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Dixon.

Yeah. First of all, I want to make it clear procedurally that I made the motion to bring this forward because I think we need to move it and have it before us. It's not necessarily a statement of my commitment at this point in time to the project.

Yes, sir.

I have been spending some time reviewing the some of the hope and trying to get through as much as I can of the 38,000 submissions that have been made to us. I want to get a sense of what they are about. So I'm still I'm still undecided in terms of my view. But at this time, I do have a question for the architect in terms of the access, which I appreciate you all doing. on the Treasury Department side, will there be a handicap accessibility on the White House side of the building?

If I understood your question, you're asking about the east access across from the Treasury, correct?

Yeah, I understand that's going to be accessible. But what about the White House accessibility? Let's suppose we might have a president who may be reaching a point where he's in a handicapped wheelchair, whatever it might be. Yes. Coming from that area. Will they have access and access? Yes, absolutely.

Yes. There is access through the front of the White House. There are elevators there.

Yes, I understand that part, but the getting into the building.

Right. Right. And we've located the elevation of the ballroom floor to match the elevation of the eastern floor.

So the access is easy. Also, I've been raising the concern about always about solar. Is there any anticipation? I don't want to affect the aesthetics of this, but what about the solar concept? Is that being considered in your work?

No, we do not intend to have any solar collectors on the building.

So we're going to have events with all electricity, lights going on, lots of lights and whatever else, and we're going to be on the grid rather than using the power that's coming from the sun on a daily basis. Okay, that's philosophical. The answer is no, thank you. Also, there was some talk about maybe since the president now has a helicopter that comes into the lawn, would there be any thought about a helicopter capacity on the roof or not? I'm sorry, I really didn't- Helicopter access on the roof. uh no no there's no helicopter access to the roof there's a helicopter landing pad on the lawn south of the way i understand that part i've been been there many times right i just wonder whether it might be accommodated all right no no we're not expanding i accept that i appreciate that all right i think i may have other questions later as i listen to more testimony from the public but thank you for your work as always right thank you thank you commissioner dixon uh do any other commissioners have uh have questions

I do. Commissioner Mendelson.

Oh, hey, Commissioner Mendelson. How are you?

I'm fine. How are you?

Doing great, sir.

Good. I apologize. I've been in and out, so I have a few questions, and I hope these have not been covered before, but maybe. My understanding is that the high industry standard for size of a ballroom is 15,000 square feet. Is it necessary for this ballroom to be so large, 22,000 square feet?

The industry standard is about 15 square feet per person for a typical hotel ballroom where you might have bar mitzvahs and weddings. Here, it's quite a different situation where we not only need to seat a thousand people, but we also have to have space for cameras, for journalists, We have to have space for showing of the flags, military marching in. There has to be additional space for a temporary stage that can be brought in and out. And then there are also security concerns where we've broadened the access aisles. So in the case of an emergency, the president and others, other people attending can be moved out of the ballroom much more quickly than would be the case in a hotel ballroom. So that's the reason that we're using a larger number than 15 square feet per person.

So I'm thinking, as I was listening to you of the Washington Hilton, everything that you mentioned, is there a stage, honor guard, cameras? The one thing that isn't there, of course, is the security. But I appreciate your answer. I had brought this up the last time you presented. Why can't the height be reduced? either by lowering the building or not having the ceiling as high. But why can't it be reduced so it's not the same height as the White House?

Well, there are existing underground structures that are being left in place, and so we can't really accommodate the program that we have and lower the building into the ground. The only way to lower the building would be to decrease the overall height of the ballroom ceiling, the bottom of which is at about 38 feet right now.

So even if it was 35 feet or 30 feet, I mean, 30 feet is roughly three stories, isn't it? That's right.

Yeah, we basically have a ballroom height ceiling that is in proportion to the 22,000 square feet that we have.

All right, I'll move on to another question. What is the purpose of the South Portico since it doesn't have an opening into any interior floor? Could it be eliminated or reduced in size so it doesn't overwhelm the historic South Portico of the White House residence?

You know, we have it there. It's really part of the egress sequence out of the ballroom. You come out to the terrace, down half a flight of stairs, And then you can either turn left to go onto the portico and then down that larger stair, which is at the center of the portico, or alternatively, you can continue straight. Is it an absolutely essential part of the program? I would say no, it's not. It's really, it's an aesthetic decision to have it there. so then but it's an aesthetic decision it doesn't it compete with the historic south portico of the existing residence uh i i don't know that it competes i mean it's several hundred feet away um it certainly has a different scale a different feel to to what you see on the residence uh if you were any closer to the residence i think i would agree with you it would compete but i think given the distance Given that it's so much further south, I think that mitigates that comparison quite a bit.

I'll keep moving. So this may have been covered in the presentation. And again, I apologize. I was in and out. But how far in front of the Treasury Building will the ballroom project?

How much further south?

Yeah, I guess it would be, I said front, and I think the front is actually Pennsylvania Avenue. Maybe I'm wrong, but yes, further south. How much further south does the ballroom project in the Treasury Building?

To be honest with you, I don't have that number in my head. If I had to guess, I'm going to approximate here, I would say probably somewhere between 40 and 50 feet. I suspect that's not the exact number, but that's approximately the range.

OK, I know there were the viewshed presentations. Why is the second story colonnade connecting the two buildings necessary? How would you explain the imbalance with the West Wing?

Well, it's necessary if you're, you know, we want to access the ballroom from the East Wing without going outdoors.

Yes.

And so the only way to do that is really to create a second story on the colonnade. Otherwise you'd be exiting the White House, you'd be outdoors, walking across the roof of the colonnade to enter the ballroom. So the two stories allows you to move from one building to the other without having to go outdoors.

But then that creates the imbalance with the West Wing.

Yeah, that's a very interesting question. It has a lot of history behind it about the imbalance. I mean, I could take a moment to address that more thoroughly. I mean, I think it's a pretty foundational issue, and it actually surfaced historically on multiple occasions.

Shalom, can you speak to that a bit? I mean, the history of it is quite fascinating.

Sure, sure, I can do that. Robert Heimerler, You know, and i'll do that, you know not so much in the spirit of defending any particular design, but really more in the spirit of broadening our understanding of the overall context which Matthew and his staff presentation discussed at some length. Robert Heimerler, We have maps from the 1790s, and you know even the early 1800s. that show how President Washington, George Washington, intended the White House to be sited on this 82-acre parcel of land and be symmetrically framed by two slightly smaller buildings. You know, they were identified. Those two buildings were identified. One is the Treasury on the east, and the other one is the State War and Navy Building on the west. And what's interesting is that This vision was significantly different than what L'Enfant had envisioned. And this vision was also altered as these two flanking buildings, EOB and Treasury, were completed over about a 50-year period. Both these buildings wound up being considerably larger than the White House, not smaller as originally intended. And again, interestingly enough, in addition to all of this, any attempt at creating symmetry and balance at that point, which was part of the original plan, but that intent of creating symmetry and balance was basically abandoned at that point. You know, state war building wound up being about twice the height and also about twice the size of the treasury. And this absence of symmetry and absence of balance, you know, interesting enough, again, resurfaced during the Truman administration. And it was the heart of a debate that related really to another proposed addition flanking the executive residence that was being considered back in the 1950s. And this is the most interesting part about it, I think, which is that the central issue in the debate was the question of whether this site should be viewed as a campus. When I say this site, I'm talking about 83 acres of the White House reservation. So whether it should be viewed as a campus with multiple buildings on it, or whether any new construction in the general vicinity of the general White House residence could only be viewed as an addition to the White House itself. The ballroom that you're considering today that we're proposing is sited about 135 feet away from the residence. so you know the question I would raise is can it be viewed as another building on the campus which joins a larger family of buildings and mediates the scale between the Treasury to the White House or alternatively is its proximity to the White House such that it can only be viewed as an addition with no other considerations You know, and as I said earlier, I raised this question not so much in defense of any particular design, but more as a general proposition relating to the larger context. In a sense, I think we have history repeating itself here. You know, just as the increasing intensity of government functions required both the Treasury, the main Treasury and state or Navy building to grow considerably. and alter their intended symmetry in relationship to the executive mansion, you know, today there appears to be a functional need that did not exist back then that cannot be met by the existing facilities on the White House reservation and thus requires revisiting the whole question of context and scale and balance. This is not a new question. It's been addressed, as I said, several times in the past.

And that's a long answer to my question of how you explain the imbalance with the West Wing.

Well, I mean, I'm pointing out here that historically, as we look at the White House, the imbalance between the two sides existed over many many decades at different times in history um you know the imbalance was created between you know the different different differing sizes of the treasury and and eob uh the 50-year period um from about 1842 forward for the next five decades uh where um only one of those two buildings had been completed uh you know we had an imbalance and and it's interesting to me that That imbalance is a very fundamental part of the history of the site.

So I have one last question. What's going to happen with the east facade of the residence, including specifically the triple window?

All we're doing there is we're taking one of the windows and lowering the sill down to the floor so the window can become a door. And you'll be able to leave the East Room through that opening onto the colonnade. And that's the only change that we're making there.

Okay. Those were the questions that I had. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mendelson. Do any other commissioners have any questions or comments at this time?

Chairman, this is Paul Schaefer. I just wanted to commend the team. This is fantastic work, something that I believe we can be proud of. And this is going to be a lasting legacy. So fantastic work. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Schaefer. Any other commissioners?

i'd also just like to associate with the comments just made i think this is magnificent design really really impressed by the results and all the time energy and thought put into this by the architects and the team especially over a fairly short period of time i think we've made considerable progress just over the last couple of months alone you know i think it's great it's a tribute to not only what's going on with this administration, but I think the White House should grow with the nation. I think the White House should be a static building. It should develop with the times. And I think this is a tribute to kind of where the United States currently is positioned in terms of global leadership. I really appreciate the the uniformity and the consistency between the executive mansion and the neoclassical architectural language that it continues with this latest design and very much appreciate um all the progress being made i think also i just want to comment on um you know i think you know we're talking about its size but a lot of european ballrooms uh um tend to be this size or even greater i know some of um you know the grandest sort of palaces and in Austria, Italy, France tend to be over a million square feet, in some cases two and a half million square feet. Think of the Winter Palace, the Hofburg Palace, the Louvre Palace. So I think actually if you compare it on a global arena, it's still fairly modest in size. So to the extent that we could continue to keep, you know, just sort of keep the size and the proportions and make a large statement I think is really good. And I just wish you all the best of luck as you continue this progress.

I'd say you don't even have to go as far afield as these great palaces in Europe, Paul. I think the Washington Hilton ballroom, I would guess, is almost 40, 50 percent larger than the floor space of the ballroom we have contemplated here. But yeah, thank you, Paul. Do any other commissioners have comments or questions? Hearing and seeing none, I'd just like to say a few quick things. I expect I'll speak at significantly greater length at our April meeting when this comes up for a final vote. Shalom mentioned a bit about the history of the White House complex, and as all of you know, I'm quite fascinated by uh... history as it relates to architecture uh... the white house is essentially at every stage of its development uh... every new addition including the initial construction of the white house uh... has been roundly criticized often for reasons of of size and scale uh... thomas jefferson described the original james hoban uh... designed mansion is uh... big enough for two emperors one pope and the grand llama in the bargain uh... obviously the construction of the you'll be uh... then the state warren navy building which shalom reference mark twain called it the ugliest building in america and uh... henry adams described it as an architectural infant asylum uh... so we we have a long history of of criticisms being leveled uh... at new additions to the white house which in time uh... have come to be uh... celebrated I'd note, for example, the addition of the Truman Balcony to the south facade of the White House was roundly condemned in its time, and now we consider it to be a vital piece of probably the most famous elevation or famous view of the White House, that South Portico. I believe in time that this ballroom project will be similarly recognized and will be similarly iconic. And I'd also commend the project team for the significant advances in the design that we've seen as a commission since the informational presentation in January. I think the removal of the southern pediment is a great improvement on the original design. I think it more effectively frames the central executive residence and builds more continuity between the executive residence treasury and then now the proposed ballroom in the middle. I think that I commend our team at NCPC for their constructive comments. I'd encourage the project team to continue looking at ways to incorporate those comments into the final design. I'd also compliment the project team at our last meeting at that informational presentation. I'd ask for more detailed view sheds that included landscaping to really get a better feel of what the pedestrian experience would be like once the ballroom's construction would be potentially completed. And I think in the presentation today, we've really seen that, and it's quite enlightening, and I appreciate your attention to that matter as well. Overall, though, I would echo something that Matthew said at the start of his presentation on behalf of NCPC staff, which is that when you look at the public comments we've received, when you look at a lot of the public criticism that's been leveled at the ballroom, it's matters that just extend far beyond the scope of this commission's statutory jurisdiction and really this commission's purpose. I think we're here to consider matters that fall within our purview. I would commend our staff and the commissioners present today for really maintaining that focus and sticking to that focus. And as we proceed into the public comment portion of today's meeting, I hope that that focus is maintained and that this doesn't just sort of become a more generalized airing of grievances. With that having been said, do any other commissioners have questions or comments before we proceed? Well, with that, I'd once again like to thank our professional staff at NCPC and the project team for their enlightening presentations today. And we'll now proceed into the public testimony portion of today's meeting. I spoke with Marcel and Megan and the team at NCPC right before we got going as a commission. A number of people we'd expected to testify have indicated that they no longer wish to testify today or at all. They don't wish to contribute public comments on the project as a result of that. I think if we're willing to go late tonight, if we're willing to sort of keep going until about seven, seven thirty tonight, we may be able to exhaust all public comments today as opposed to having to reconvene tomorrow. That would certainly be my preference unless members of the commission feel otherwise. But and I'd also just note, I think this goes without saying that public comments include, you know, obscenities or slurs or anything like that. We're going to have to cut off the regrettably cut off those members of the public. I think that's all I really have to say. Megan, I think how are we going to do this? Do you want to call up the first five public witnesses and we'll proceed on that basis?

Yes, I will. So to start, and just so the Commission is aware, we will move in groups of roughly five witnesses. We'll hear from each of them, and then at the conclusion of that group, you'll be asked if you have any questions for that group, and then we'll move on to the next group. So to start, we have Carol Quillen, David Scott Parker, Brian Green, Priya Jain, and Joanna Hampton. So I'll start. Carol Quillen, you are representing the National Trust for Historic Preservation and have five minutes to provide your testimony.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members of the National Capital Planning Commission, my name is Carol Quillen and I do speak on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I'm really grateful for this opportunity. First, I want to thank you all for your service. You have a huge responsibility. You oversee the collaborative planning process for our nation's capital, something in which all Americans have a stake. Washington, D.C. is the symbolic heart of the United States. Its design and architecture should embody the enduring values of the American people and the bold aspirations of our founding. Visiting here should ground all Americans in these shared values so that together we can build a more perfect union for our children and our children's children as our forebears did for us. For this city to ground Americans in our enduring values, its layout and key buildings must connect to our history. We need to see the through line from the 1791 L'Enfant plan to the comprehensive plan of today. We must be able to recognize places where our history happened. Because connecting to our history serves people in the present, this commission identifies historic preservation as a key component of the comprehensive plan for the nation's capital. You are stewards of places that matter to all Americans, places where we learn where we came from and who we might become. By acting as responsible stewards, you can inspire each of us to connect to our highest ideals. At the same time, of course, this commission must also consider the needs of the public servants who occupy our historic landmarks now. It's a hard job both to honor your obligation to connect the public to our enduring values through historic preservation and to meet the needs of public servants who occupy our iconic buildings. I know it's hard. I know it's challenging because my colleagues at the National Trust strive to do it every day. At the National Trust, we activate the power of historic places to serve people now. And because we do this every day, I can say with confidence that you don't have to choose. You don't have to choose between respecting our history for the American people and accommodating modern government's needs. In the case of the East Wing Modernization Project, you can do both. Doing both, however, requires that you take your time, that you move deliberately, that you engage seriously with ideas offered by the tens of thousands of architects, planners, and patriotic citizens who have taken the time to write to you. These people are worth hearing out. The American people have good ideas. We know you can build a ballroom that, unlike the current plan, truly honors the iconic status, the primacy, and the historic significance of the people's house. Comments submitted to you show how this could be done. The resulting ballroom would be smaller, and it would still hold 1,000 people for a seated dinner. It would be lower in height, and it would still accommodate the functions proposed in the current plan. It would respect the building's architectural style. and it would retain the existing access along Pennsylvania Avenue between the Capitol and the White House, thereby preserving a physical representation of the symbolic connection between the legislative and the executive branches in a nation committed to representative government and public accountability. This consultative process that you are offering us, this process exists for a reason. It enables you to draw on the collective wisdom of many and not just that of one man or faction. Listening to the views of the American people and incorporating the best of our ideas will result in a better overall project as it builds a shared sense of purpose on a contentious issue. Getting to this point, I know, takes patience. Democratic deliberation is slow. It's also the hallmark of a government by the people. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be with you today. We at the National Trust remain ready to work with you to improve this important project. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, Carol.

David Scott Parker, I believe, has not joined. So we will move on to Brian Green. Brian, you have three minutes to provide your testimony.

There we go. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. The White House is a national historic landmark in the people's house.

Any visible change- It's your computer and it has your name.

Excuse me?

i'm david parker i am here i don't know why i wasn't recognized okay why don't we proceed with mr green at this point and then we'll uh we'll get you in after that uh mr parker and if we could uh accommodate mr green so that he has the full uh full three minutes um to uh so that he's not penalized for this uh this interruption thank you mr chairman of course

Again, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. The White House is a National Historic Landmark and the People's House. Any visible change must be exceptionally restrained. The proposed ballroom and east wing modernization, as submitted to NCPC by the Office of the Executive Residence, would permanently and adversely alter the character of the complex. As to size and massing, the proposed east wing is disproportionately large in footprint, height, and volume relative to the executive mansion, west wing, and the colonnades. It overwhelms the ensemble and diminishes the mansion's visual primacy. For more than two centuries, additions have been scaled to preserve that primacy. McKimbey and White's West Wing of 1902 was held to one story with explicit guidance that additional height would injure the White House. That restraint was respected in the 1934 West Wing expansion, and the 1902 and 1942 East Wing works. By program and section, the current scheme exceeds what is necessary for a 900-person assembly and substitutes bulk for careful siting. The remedy is straightforward. Requires significant reduction in footprint, height, and mass. As to classical design, the proposal is neither discrete nor well-proportioned for this context. The composition reads ponderous. Colonnades and large arched windows are repetitive and overblown, ill-matched to the mansion's quieter scale. On the east, the pediment and colonnade are overscaled and asymmetrically placed, unresolved in plan and not in register with interior spaces. Removing the south pediment is welcome, but further reduction is needed. Here, classical design should defer, not compete. If a fitting solution cannot be achieved, a responsible path would be to rebuild the East Wing's exterior largely as it was and locate the ballroom elsewhere. As for architectural details, several elements amplify the outsized reading of the ballroom. The three cascading south stairs have no precedent on the campus and rival the South Portico's more modest steps. The proposed east and south porticos, with large Corinthian orders, compete with the executive mansion's smaller, finer ionic columns. Column size, count, and spacing draw attention from the mansion rather than frame it. These are not programmatic necessities. These are choices. NCPC should require the removal of non-essential features, beginning with the South Portico and Cascade, and mandate revisions to the orders, proportions, and spacing so that the addition supports, rather than overshadows, the historic core. The ballroom southern footprint forces an abrupt bend into the existing curve, disrupting President's Park, historic composition of soft axial curves and symmetric greens. Reduce the southward extent to restore the legible continuous geometry of drives and lawns. From the Capitol steps and to the east, the new mass blocks and overwhelms views of the Executive Mansion and its landscape rooms. Protect these views by lowering height, tightening the plan, and pulling mass away from key sight lines. In closing, please require meaningful reductions in size, massing, restrained classical language, and details that restore the Executive Mansion's clear visual supremacy. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Green. Can we now proceed with Mr. Parker, if you're still with us, sir?

I am here. Can you hear me? I can. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I'm David Scott Parker, a practicing architect for over 36 years and fellow of the AIA. I am here to express grave concerns about the proposed White House ballroom. During my remarks, I will reference graphics submitted in my written test comments as well as project them on the screen behind me. One, the scale is overwhelming. The proposed ballroom portico is 166% larger than the White House South Portico and 40% larger than the Treasury South Portico. An appendage to the White House should be subservient. Two, the program is inflated. American architecture industry standard for ballroom ranges from 10 to 15 square feet per person. Based on the high standard, a ballroom for 1,000 people should be 15,000 square feet. However, the proposed space is over 22,000, 47% larger than industry standard. Three, the volume is exaggerated. It is nearly three times the original White House, a violation of classical architecture principles, mandating balance, and the Secretary of the Interior standards. Four, the portico is illogical. The ballroom floor is 12 feet higher than and does not connect to its south portico, and neither does the kitchen underneath. Five, the portico floor has no function or purpose, is not ADA accessible, does not lead to an entrance, and its doors are fake. in addition the 24 columns render the porch useless while also blocking views from the ballroom above six george washington commissioned lanfonte to design washington dc and the two buildings he specifically called out on axis were the president's house and the u.s capital the importance of this axis urbanistically historically and symbolically cannot be overstated seven The axial connection between two branches of government will be forever aborted. Eight, the rendering from the architect's latest submission reveals that the new ballroom becomes the main feature, completely blocking the view of the White House and grounds from Capitol steps. The sliver to the right in red is the Treasury, which does not block the view of the White House grounds. 10, the ballroom floor is unnecessarily elevated 25 and a half feet above street level. The entrance level of the building is irrationally devoted to non-public service and support spaces. and the kitchen is immense, two and a half times larger than industry standard. Lastly, the overwhelming mass as viewed from Pennsylvania Avenue could be reduced over 38% if the ballroom were resized to industry standard while lowering the currently fully above grade kitchen and eliminating the inaccessible and unusable South portico. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be with you today and for considering these careful observations. Please respect the historic White House, its Olmstead designed landscape, which will be detoured by the new building, axial viewshed, and symbolic relationship to the Capitol.

Thank you, Mr. Parker.

Thank you. Next, we have Priya Jain. You are representing the Society of Architectural Historians and have five minutes to provide your testimony. Thank you.

My name is Priya Jain and I'm a licensed architect in the state of Texas. I offer these comments as a private citizen and as chair of the Heritage Conservation Committee of the Society of Architectural Historians. These views do not represent the opinions of my employer, Texas A&M University. The Society of Architectural Historians, founded in 1940, is the leading organization for architectural historians in North America. The White House is the most significant building in our nation. Since 1800, it has served as the symbol of our democracy and as the temporary home for American presidents. The East Wing Modernization Project, under your review, will adversely and permanently alter this national historic landmark. While we acknowledge the White House has evolving needs, we emphasize that this project is the first major change to its exterior appearance in the last 84 years. We therefore urge NCPC to exercise due diligence in review and respectfully draw attention to four major issues. First, disruption to President's Park landscape. Due to the ballroom's large footprint, The curved driveway south of the east wing has an incongruous, sharp bend. This is not only visually jarring, but strays from the historic design of softly curved pathways and symmetrical green spaces. President's Park, a designated national park, reflects landscape principles that have withstood the test of time and are seen in a series of classical, circular, and elliptical forms. The ballroom disrupts this harmony and can easily be improved. by reducing the footprint second incompatible massing size and scale the proposed east wing is disproportionately larger than any single building in the white house therefore it overwhelms everything and most importantly the central historic residence the architectural history of the white house makes it abundantly clear that since 1800 each subsequent addition has maintained the visual supremacy of the executive residence. When the architects McKim, Mead and White added the West Wing in 1902, they specifically designed a one-story addition and noted, I quote, no increase in height be permitted because of the injury that would result to the White House, end quote. This was respected in 1934 when the West Wing was expanded. by adding a short penthouse addition and subterranean spaces, and both in the 1902 and 1942 expansions of the East Wing. Some flamboyant additions that dwarfed the executive residence were indeed proposed between 1880 and 1902, but rejected by Congress. This history of change at the White House proves that thoughtfully designed, intentionally scaled and appropriate additions are possible. You can and should ask for a building that is significantly smaller. Third, incompatible architectural details. There are many individual elements that conflict with the historic architecture and contribute to the outsized scale. For example, the three cascading stairs on the south. There is no precedent for these in the historic building and they rival the more modest stairs at the south portico of the executive residence. Similarly, the massive columned porticos of the ballroom rival the modest north and south porticos at the executive residence in their size and number of columns. Large Corinthian columns, the most ornate of the three Greek orders, are used at the ballroom and detract from the simpler, thinner, ionic columns at the executive residence. We urge NCPC to ask for removal of these unnecessary features and modification of others. Fourth, loss of key viewsheds. The view of the White House from the US Capitol building, a key element of the L'Enfant plan, will forever be altered due to the obstructing ballroom. This critical issue can again be solved by reducing the ballroom's mass. In the past, NCPC has rigorously reviewed projects at the White House that were much smaller in scale and visual impact. Yet, for the substantial addition, you propose a rushed timeline, approving both concept and final plans today. Not only does this limit a thorough review, but silences the voice of American people through decreased opportunities for input. We respectfully urge you to ask for an improved ballroom addition and preserve the symbol of American heritage. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Jane.

Thank you. The last person in this group is Joanna Hampton. I don't believe that Joanna has joined. So at this point, Mr. Chairman, the commission can ask questions of these witnesses. So that would be Carol Quillen for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, David Scott Parker, Brian Green, and Priya Jain for the Society of Architectural Historians.

Thank you, Megan. Do any commissioners have questions for these four individuals? Hearing none, I'd thank those of you who commented today for your comments and spending the time to help inform our process. Megan, can we proceed with the next batch of public comments?

Yes. Next, we have Rob Canetta, Rebecca Miller, Jim Stites, Tim Balke, and Ghazal Dabiri. Rob Canetta, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. Proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity for me to comment. My name is Rob Cagnetta. I am a building restoration specialist and president of Heritage Restoration, a company based here in Providence, Rhode Island, that focuses on the preservation and restoration of historic buildings. From that perspective, my remarks focus on the fundamental preservation principle. When new construction is introduced, besides an internationally significant historic structure, Careful attention must be given to scale, hierarchy, and contextual design. For more than two centuries, the White House has served as both the residence and working office of the President of the United States. While the building has been updated over time, including major structural reconstruction undertaken during the Truman administration, those interventions consistently respected the original architectural composition and the primacy of the central residence. Even the later addition in the east and west wings were conceived as subordinate elements. Their role was to support the functioning of the White House while maintaining the architectural dominance of the main house. They were designed to compliment the residents and not compete with it. This longstanding discipline is essential to preserving the symbolic and architectural clarity of the White House complex. The project documentation itself acknowledges that the proposed structure would have a larger footprint and height that would dominate the eastern portion of the site and create a visual imbalance within the executive mansion. When the adjacent structure becomes visually dominant in this way, the architectural hierarchy that has defined the White House for generations becomes disrupted. So in this case, the premise used to evaluate the significance appears to rely heavily on the limited public visibility of the proposed structure. However, preservation practice evaluates historic sites as complete compositions, where the relative relationships between the buildings, landscape, and circulations remain significant, regardless of whether every vantage point is publicly accessible. So in addition, the proposed alters the historic circulation of the east grounds. The design interrupts a traditional circular driveway by introducing the ballroom structure across it. That change modifies the spatial organization of the east side of the White House grounds, which historically has maintained a clear and balanced relationship between the building's landscape and circulation. This is not as simply as an aesthetic concern. Architecture communicates meaning. The White House is one of the most recognizable civic buildings in the world, and its physical prominence reflects its role as the center of American executive leadership. Any new construction within this should reinforce that meaning rather than dilute it. So if additional gathering space is needed, there are certainly ways to accommodate that function. However, those solutions should be developed with the explicit goal of preserving the architectural hierarchy that historically has defined the White House. Thank you very much for your time and the opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

Rebecca Miller, you are representing the D.C. Preservation League and have five minutes to provide your testimony.

Thank you. My name is Rebecca Miller. I am the executive director of the D.C. Preservation League. We are a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., dedicated to preserving and protecting the district's historic resources. We were founded in 1971 as a don't tear it down to save the old post office building on Pennsylvania Avenue from demolition. DCPL has consistently worked to ensure that proposed new developments and the adaptive reuse of historic buildings do not compromise the character of our great city. DCPL appears today to express serious concerns and strong opposition to the current mass and proportions of the proposed East Wing addition to the White House. While the current administration has emphasized the need for modernization and functionality for this important addition to the White House grounds, the proposed design strays far from the most fundamental principle of historic preservation, which dictates that new additions to historic buildings should be deferential and should allow the primary structure's significance to remain intact. The scale of the proposed new construction raises significant concerns as it dwarfs the executive residence. The original spaces within the White House were designed to convey a sense of proportion and intimacy, which are vital to the building's charm and historical significance. In contrast, the proposed East Wing addition is disproportionately large and impersonal and will detract from the dignified atmosphere that has characterized presidential events for centuries. This stark shift in design reflects a troubling impulse directed towards grandiosity that would prioritize spectacle over the subtleties of history and image of our country. Questions also arise regarding the proposal to ease colonnade, and I do appreciate Mr. Baranis' explanation as to how the colonnade would attach to the historic building. The proposed changes raise important questions about the stewardship of the White House. Preserving the integrity of the executive residence is not merely about maintaining its physical structure, but also providing for public input and transparency on proposed modifications to this highly symbolic building. through a substantially secretive process depriving the public of reasonable and meaningful participation for the sake of grandiose expansion. We risk erasing the very essence of what makes the White House a leading symbol of American history. DCPL acknowledges the need for facilities that meet modern requirements, but we believe such decisions must be approached with the utmost respect for history and context. The proposed addition in its current form not only violates established norms for historic preservation, by overshadowing the historic structure, but it also risks diluting the rich heritage that the White House represents. The argument that the scale of the proposed new construction is compatible because of the scale of the adjacent structures like the Treasury or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building is a specious one. Further, the argument that erecting tents on the South Lawn diminishes the integrity of the historic landscape with only temporary and reversible impacts does not appropriately acknowledge the profound and permanent impact that this proposed addition would have on the White House complex as a whole. For more than 50 years, DCPL has served as the leading voice for the preservation of Washington, DC's architectural heritage and possesses the expertise and responsibility to identify adverse impacts on historic resources. Based on that expertise, we conclude unequivocally that this current proposal would harm the integrity, character, and setting of the White House complex and President's Park. Mr. Chairman, at the last hearing, you were lobbying your fellow commissioners about the need for the space to host foreign dignitaries. You held forth that King Charles host events in Windsor Castle. One of your other commissioners today was talking about the palaces around the world. 250 years ago, people of America rejected monarchies and we don't have palaces for that particular reason and i'll also remind the commissioners that there is a classically inspired inspired palatial ballroom that the federal government owns mere blocks from the white house it's called the mellon auditorium it accommodates a thousand guests and was recently restored at great expense to the taxpayer the commission has received tens of thousands of public comments from residents and experts opposing the size of this project Please do not ignore the public sentiment for the addition that would be respectfully deferential to the historic landmark and compatible with the White House complex. You cannot compare a basement ballroom outside of the federal city or palaces around the world to the people's house, the White House, here in Washington, the District of Columbia. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have Jim Stites. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Yes, thank you. My name is Jim Stites, and I am a plain old American citizen. And I would like to remind the Commission that every human being, really, not named Donald Trump, understands that this misnamed modernization project, and I put that in big scare quotes, is an insult to everything that the architecture of our nation's capital represents. city was meant to evoke, a space that once evoked empathy, mercy, humanity, and the small civic rituals that made government officials human beings has been destroyed. Now this administration wants to replace it with a gold-gilded edifice to one man's ego, an architectural assent to his self-identification as a royal monarch with no relation to official government work. Like past kings, access is available to the wealthiest and most connected interests, willing to make sufficient tributes and propitiation. This gaudy, pretentious monstrosity is projected to dwarf in size the actual people's White House. This reflects and reifies in architecture the new regime coalescing around loyalty to one man, superseding the executive branch governed by law and composed of professional civil servants that America had enjoyed. The president had been understood to be a tenant of the White House, but now he claims ownership and right of disposition. I understand that your role today appears to be perfunctory and that no actual impediments can be erected to a personal sovereign. by a mere planning commission. However, you must formally reject this ballroom, if only to put down a marker for the repair of America's capital and the civic self-understanding it evokes, including the prompt demolition of this ballroom once this dark era passes into historical shame. Thank you.

Thank you. The next two witnesses, Tim Balki and Ghazal Dabiri, I do not believe are present.

So at this point, Do any commissioners have questions for the last three last three public witnesses? Hearing none. Let's proceed with our next batch, Megan.

Next is Jeffrey Dorshan, Susan DeBree, Scott Corzine, Terry Burstein, and Peter Kazilos-Clift.

Is Mr. Dorshan with us?

I do not believe so. I believe of this group, we'll start with Terry Burstein.

I am here. I don't see myself.

Well, we can hear you, Mr. Burstyn.

All right. Well, I wish I could.

There you are.

All right. Hello. Can this group tell the American people they are going to take the public's comments seriously? You have recognized that the public is against this. This is the first of several questions I would like answered when I'm finished. Why have someone spent their time and all of you spend time and funds to offer the public the opportunity to comment as I am doing now, if the decision to move forward with the ballroom has already been reached? When I watched the video of your February meeting, it was sorrowful to watch a US citizen testify against the RFK stadium, and then within less than a minute of her close, you all took up a vote as if her testimony was a formality you could not wait to get through. Why are you giving me the opportunity to speak when it has already been decided the ballroom will be built, unless this is purely a legal requirement? You are individually responsible for the widening of the road to the destruction of the power of UF citizens to create change. Hiding under the guise of the title of the National Capital Planning Commission will not remove your individual actions. You are complicit in the destruction of a national historic landmark owned by the American people. With close to 100% of the American people's comments to all committees against this plan, why are you moving to approve? According to the National Capital Planning Act of 1952, which created your committee, the White House is a national historic landmark. You're approving the building of an indoor ballroom over the site and on the ground where this national landmark stood because you wish to be pleasing to the current regime. You need to be reminded you have free will, which if you do not oppose this, you are using to do the bidding of you know who. If you approve this concept, your acts will be written in history along with each of your names, rather than the innocuous title of the National Capital Planning Commission. I ask anyone hearing or reading my words to go to the staff webpage of the National Capital Planning Commission, where you may email or telephone every member of this group in perpetuity. or until they remove their telephone numbers and email addresses. I yield back my time. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, I believe that was the only witness from that group. So if there are any questions for Mr. Burstein before we move to the next.

Do any commissioners have questions for Mr. Burstein? Hearing none, Megan, do you want to proceed with the next group of witnesses?

Yes. Next, we have Marcy Monroe, Timothy Stafford, Heidi Johnson, Tara Brown, and Martha Shea. I believe we will start with Tara Brown. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Oh, there we go. Hello. Sorry about that. My name is Tara, and I'm the owner and operator of Kremers Estate Distillery. And I have to say that being a business as well as an owner and one who lives in historic property can be extremely challenging. to meet all these demands and requests that are expected from the general public as well as from you know everybody trying to satisfy those needs can be like I said a daunting task I think it's wonderful how you guys have put together this incredible group and navigated these waters to help this project turn out to be wonderful. And I'm happy to see where it's going and thankful that this has really happened. I'm actually kind of surprised it's not on the National Register, which I thought it was. But I could imagine if you guys can do this much, work to collaborate and make this project even better could imagine the ability to help other projects such as like a project like mine. The reason I'm bringing this up is this type of process of meeting everybody's expectations as well as getting a project done is very hard, especially with building codes and things like that. And there's no hope for local properties to get this type of support like this project is. We would love to see more of this support locally that historic properties could go to to get help when it comes to navigating these types of treasurer's codes and things like that. I think that this is great that our president is giving us a gift of this incredible ballroom that is much needed, especially for his security and allowing him to have a place that he can have people come together and have it safe. So I think it's great to have the proper sizing for the security and for those members that need to attend to those events. This is our nation, one nation under God, and we are an icon. People look at us. And so coming to the United States, I think it's important that we have a great first impression. And I think this looks really well and I'm in full support of what our president is doing. And we should be thankful and blessed to have had someone like President Trump, who's had decades of building, doing this project. And we are in great hands. And I thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brown.

Yes. Thank you. I do not believe we have any of the other four witnesses from this group at this time. So if the commission has any questions for Ms. Brown.

Do any commissioners have questions for Ms. Brown? Hearing none, I think we can proceed with the next batch, Megan.

Yes. Next is Diana Niculescu, Lucinda Rundell, Nikki O'Keefe, Phoebe Tudor, and Kai Rowan. I believe Phoebe Tudor is with us. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment to the Commission. I would like to outline my concerns about how the plans before you will disrupt rather than reinforce the established design of the White House and offer some alternative views that should be considered by the Commission during this important review process. These comments are based on my professional background in historic preservation and formal training at Columbia University, where I earned a Master of Arts in this discipline. The White House is both intertwined with the presidency as an institution and also stands as an enduring public monument that hovers above and beyond any one individual president. Those who reside there do so for a limited term, serving as temporary stewards of a place whose meaning and significance far exceed the span of any administration. Our presidents have always been tenants of the White House and not its landlord. The symbolic power of this building has endured through war, reconstruction, expansion, and modernization, precisely because past leaders recognized that their responsibility was custodial. Every president inherits the White House from those who came before. That comes with the obligation to pass it forward intact in its divining character to those who will follow. That stewardship requires restraint and decisions that are based on preservation of the building's essential symmetry, its modern form, its relationship with the L'Enfant Plan, its elegant classical design, and its many historic interior and exterior features. Any new construction within the historic setting of the White House should complement and pay deference to what already works. Unfortunately, the proposal before the commission raises serious concerns. While it seeks to echo the architectural language of the White House, it introduces elements that disrupt rather than reinforce the building's established design. Corinthian columns have been introduced on a building that already uses the ionic order. There is a monumental staircase on the southern side that does not actually connect to the interior of the building. There are pediments, ceilings, and floors that do not align with the existing counterparts in the White House. As other architectural experts have commented, these inconsistencies risk weakening the very character of the project it is supposed to blend with. I urge the NCPC to apply the highest standard of care in its review and to reject this proposal as it is. Any new addition to the White House must harmonize with the building's important history and established design. It is ours to protect and pass forward. Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. Next, we have Kai Rowan. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Hello, I'm Kai Rowan, just an ordinary citizen. I've been watching this in the news and had a chance to make a comment. I'm not an architect, but the new designs that have been put out there on the internet, it's ugly. It's just ugly. It's too much, you know. I didn't realize, you know, that it was using the columns, for instance, are just out of place. And the building is too high. It needs to come down a story to blend with the rest of the White House campus. And I worry about the cost also of all this ostentatious architectural elements. This is not a building meant to be ostentatious. It's meant to be... grave it's meant to be the people's house and i am grieving about the east wing and how it was torn down i visited as a child uh several times the white house and once i did get to go past the east the east wing and i won't be able to show this to my grandkids when i take them to dc someday Um, this has just been a total shame and I hope the commission listens to the public, the overwhelming attitude of the public and experts that this, this, uh, plan is just not in, in line with American values and

the white house as it exists right now thank you thank you thank you so that concludes this group mr chairman so if there are any questions for phoebe tudor or kai rowan uh do any commissioners have questions for these two witnesses uh hearing none um thank you both and uh megan if we could proceed with the next group

Yes, next is Dr. Mary Ann Hunting, Mary Costanzo, Heather Sarandos, Conover Hunt, and Robert Vader. Dr. Mary Ann Hunting, you have three minutes to provide your testimony.

I'm not Marianne Hunting. Okay, are you signed up to testify today? Yes, I am. I'm Mary Smetanka. Don't know why that got there.

Okay, well, why don't you proceed, Ms. Smetanka, and we'll try to track down Dr. Hunting later.

Too many Mary Ann's, I guess. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. My name is Mary Smetanka, and I'm a private citizen from Clancy, Montana. I return to the district every year, and each visit reminds me of how important it is to protect the historic and architectural character of the White House. And I believe this proposal puts that at risk. I'm concerned that this project, as proposed, doesn't meet the standards that protect the federal core. First, I'm uneasy about a major addition to the White House being privately funded. Private financing brings outside interest into a federal project, and that affects how decisions are made, how large a project becomes, and how much it alters a historic site. Allowing a privately funded structure of this scale sets a troubling precedent. It opens the door for future federal buildings to be shaped by private donors rather than by consistent public planning standards. Secondly, the size and the height of the ballroom would visually overwhelm the White House. And other people have talked about this, so I'm not going to spend any time on it. Which leads me to my third and major concern. When this project was presented to the Commission on January 8, 2026, that's the video that I watched, it was noted that additional changes to the West Wing and the surrounding grounds are being contemplated. and will be brought forward later. Given the scale of what is being proposed, it's troubling to consider any demolition or partial demolition of the West Wing without understanding how future plans relate to this project. The Commission should be able to review the full scope of anticipated changes together, and I believe plans for the West Wing must be seriously considered as part of the East Wing modernization before any demolition occurs. And I understand here in testifying today that the commission cannot consider issues like political motives, personal taste, or broader disagreements with the administration, which is why I have limited my testimony. I respectfully urge the commission to require a more complete and coordinated approach, one that addresses private funding protects the scale and settling of the White House, and evaluates any changes to the West Wing as part of a unified plan. Only a design reviewed in its full context can truly respect the White House's history, its scale, and its place in the federal city. Thank you for allowing me to speak, and I do hope that you will consider most of the speaker's thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Matenka.

Are there any questions for this witness? This is the only person in that group of five.

Do any commissioners have questions for Ms. Mary Smetanka? Hearing none. Thank you, ma'am. Megan, if we could proceed with the next group of witnesses.

Yes. Next, we have Catherine Cox, Matthias Grau, Kathleen Ridehall, Shep Peterson, and Nancy Teichowitz. We'll start with Matthias Grau. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Do we have Mr. Grau with us?

You did.

We can go ahead and move on and see if we can get Matthias Grau back.

Perfect.

There's no one else currently present in that group. I believe the next person we have who is present is Kim Adams.

Great. Ms. Adams?

Kim Adams, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. It appears that Kim, Kim Adams, are you still with us?

There we are.

Oh, okay. I am not Kim Adams.

Oh boy. Who might you be ma'am?

I'm Kim Hoagland, also known as Alison Hoagland. So I'm number 96.

Ms. Hoagland, it's great to have you with us. Megan, I guess we should just proceed with Ms. Hoagland in that case. Absolutely. We'll try to find the other Kim in a bit.

Great, thank you. So my name is Alison Hoagland. I'm here today to express my opposition to the East Wing modernization as it has been presented. I'm a longtime resident of Washington, D.C., a professor emerita of history and historic preservation, and the author of six books on American architectural history. I have a long and deep commitment to architectural history and its power to explain the past and inform the present. The White House, the most significant residential building in the United States, was designed purposely and symbolically. Its neoclassical design projects order, rationality, and dignity, but not opulence. Its relatively small size is an important part of its symbolism, declaring that this was not a palace or a castle, but rather a house. The White House should be respected by new construction, not overshadowed by it. Four aspects of the proposed ballroom are particularly concerning. One, the new building is three times the size of the White House and will dominate it. The architect asserts that trees will obscure the building, and this is absurd. There is no guarantee that trees will survive even a year, much less for the life of the building. Trees are not a design strategy. Two, the two-story connector is intrusive and unnecessary. The ostensible reason for this second story is so that visitors could enter the White House and proceed through the east room to the ballroom. But it seems most visitors will enter through the east side of the ballroom where security screening would take place. Further, wouldn't this turn the east room into a hallway? We have not seen plans that explain the impact on the interior of the White House. Three, the exterior of the White House will also suffer damage from this enlarged connector, which will impact the handsome Palladian window in the center of the White House's east wall, as well as an adjacent window, although it is not clear how. The exterior stone walls date back to the original construction of the White House in the 1790s, unlike much of the rest of the building. The loss of this fabric would be tragic. Four, the size of the ballroom has not been justified. It would seem that the need to gather a thousand diners would occur only rarely, perhaps only for inaugural balls. Most of the time, the attendance would be smaller, necessitating partitioning of the ballroom space. The 40 foot high ceiling of the ballroom would be woefully out of scale for a ballroom half of its length or width. More time is needed for a careful reconsideration of this project. Constructing a ballroom is possible, but it should be deferential to the White House, not overwhelming. It should be scaled for realistic uses, not aspirational ones. And it should not destroy any fabric of the White House. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Hoagland.

Thank you. Next, I do believe we now have Matthias Grau.

All right. I think Willie, my dog, Willie agrees with me. All right. Why don't you come back to me?

Did you come back to you, Mr. Crow?

Well, unless you want to listen to Willie, my lab behind me, uh, but, um, OK, let me continue. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm a retired teacher and high school administrator, Matthias Groh. And I want to say that this edifice, I want to say that it will be gaudy, garish, architecturally offensive, in a word, ugly. But actually, I don't know that. It may end up being beautiful. I suspect not. But what I do know is that it's unnecessary, grossly, expensively unnecessary. In retirement, I served on the board of the Ignatian Volunteer Corps. It's a nonprofit dedicated to placing retirees in service to other nonprofits that serve the poor, the disadvantaged, the marginalized. And one nonprofit that we serve is the Jane Place Neighborhood Sustainability Initiative here in New Orleans, established after Katrina. Jane Place is a housing rights organization committed to creating sustainable, economically just neighborhoods and communities here in the city of New Orleans. This organization works to increase the range of affordable housing options available to low and moderate income residents and advocating for housing justice across the city. It addresses the needs of those residents most vulnerable to housing discrimination, displacement, and neighborhood planning exclusion. This initiative hosts community education events, panel discussions, mixes at bars, teach-ins, community dinners, et cetera. It testifies before the city council to support expanded tenant rights and protect New Orleans' dwindling supply of affordable housing stock. And Jane Place purchases land and builds homes to lease or sell to low-income residents at rates far below the market rate. This is the kind of building our president should be advocating. I oppose this waste of money to satisfy one person's vanity. I suggest the funding billionaires redirect their gift to benefit our fellow citizens who are suffering in some way through poverty, persecution, healthcare inequity, and especially housing market inequality. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Grau.

Thank you. Next, we'll have Wendy Joseph. Wendy, you will have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Thank you. I'm Wendy Evans Joseph, fellow of the AIA and the current president of the National Academy of Design. I am strongly against the building of the ballroom as designed. And to repeat what my colleague David Scott Parker so brilliantly analyzed, there are no logical or rational reasons for its scale. Architecture is a creative act that should not be used as propaganda. Forms have meaning, and the meaning of the White House is truth in governance. The White House is a welcoming home for the American people and the entire globe. Presidents have the privilege of inhabiting this house for their time in office, and this has meant each family leaves their mark. But this palimpsest of history has, at its best, reflected and respected the fact that we are a democratic nation. This design does not. Architecture has meaning. And that meaning should not be co-opted to speak the language of historical power. Instead of anachronistic, supersized vocabulary hearkening to Roman times of absolute rule, we should choose an architecture of welcome. We have the right to reject imposing facades, to say no to grandiose rooms, no to inaccessible staircases, no to glitter, no to gold, and what those features mean. Public buildings are more than physical. They have a soul, a central driving spirit. That spirit reflects its purpose, content, and the people it serves. The White House embodies the soul of the United States, our freedoms. architecture at its best is an act of optimism let the white house be optimistic not about power but about welcome it is the home open to all not a stage set for presidential power privilege or pageantry thank you so much thank you thank you so mr chairman at this time i think um we would ask if the commission has any questions for uh the

Previous three witnesses, Alison Hoagland, Matthias Grau, or Wendy Joseph.

Uh, thank you, Megan. Do any commissioners have questions for any of these three witnesses? Uh, well then I'll, I'll, uh, proceed with thanking them for their testimony. And if we could, uh, we could move on to the next group and I hope Mr. Grau's dog is doing okay. It sounded a bit distressed.

Thank you. Next, we will hear from Carl Elefante and Eileen Mitchell. We'll start with Carl. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, for the opportunity to provide testimony. I very much appreciate that and very much appreciate your attentiveness here today. Much of my 50-year architectural career was devoted to preserving and updating cherished historic properties, notably including the United States Capitol and other public and federal buildings in the Monumental Core and on the National Mall. I know firsthand both the procedures that must be followed and the high caliber of design solutions demanded when intervening in buildings that contribute to our national character the way the White House does. The proposal before the commission has not followed those procedures. The proposal before this commission does not rise to the high caliber demanded for such an important building, for such an important place, and for such a cherished and iconic national symbol. The stewardship of beloved historic buildings provided opportunities for me to study the best examples of traditional architecture, both the design principles they express and their durable construction. Built heritage has important lessons to teach. Last year, I published a book that stresses the importance of the lessons of traditional architecture in addressing the challenges of the 21st century. Cultivating mutual respect between architects who promote modern and traditional design has been one of my objectives in taking on national leadership roles in the architecture and historic preservation professional associations culminating in my presidency of the American Institute of Architects in 2018. These activities provided the opportunities for me to get to know many of our nation's leading architects. Recently, I've spoken with respected designers of new traditional architecture about this proposed addition to the White House. None, I repeat none, believe this proposal to be a compatible and appropriate solution. It is very, very far from the high caliber of design demanded. It is certainly possible to design a ballroom addition to the White House that would be both compatible and appropriate. I submitted additional written testimony that points to several considerations needing further study that address both process and design approach. Approval of the current proposal by this commission would be more than regrettable. It would be an irrevocable damage to one of the most important buildings, places and symbols of our nation. Is that the legacy its proponents and your commission seeks? Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Thank you.

Next we have Eileen Mitchell who will have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Is Ms. Mitchell with us?

Yes. I believe you're muted.

Thank you. Sorry, I was not I am not at my computer, so I'm having to use my phone. So sorry for that. Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Aileen Mitchell. I am a former White House visitor's office and worked in the White House in the East Wing under the administration of George H.W. Bush. The White House has long been known as the people's house, and any proposal that alters its historic character deserves careful scrutiny. I strongly oppose the current proposal for the East Wing project. During my time in the visitor's office, I saw firsthand how meaningful it was for Americans and visitors from all around the world to experience the White House and its history. the white house is simply not a residence or an office complex it is one of the most recognizable symbols of american democracy it is also unique among states residents around the world because any member of the public are able to visit it for generations millions of americans students veterans and international visitors have walked its halls and connected directly with the story of our nation The White House East Wing is itself part of that living history. Since its expansion in the 20th century, it has housed the First Lady's office, the White House Visitor's office, and the infrastructure that makes public access possible. It is the engine that allows the people's house to remain open to the people. Altering and removing these historic spaces within the East Wing risks erasing the institutional memory of staff and public servants who have worked there for decades to welcome visitors and preserve the traditions of the presidency. Throughout history, presidents have served as temporary stewards of the White House, not owners. While each administration inevitably leaves its mark, the building itself has been carefully preserved so that it reflects the continuity of the American republic rather than the preferences of one single presidency. Preservation has long been recognized as a national responsibility reinforced by historians, curators, and institutions dedicated to protecting the integrity of the White House as an historic site. Modernization and preservation do not have to be in conflict. Necessary improvements should be made thoughtfully and in ways that protect the historic character and legacy of the building. I hope that everyone will respect the White House as this historic institution and entrusted to its care rather than dramatically alter and redesign it in someone else's image. For these reasons, I urge the Commission to reconsider the current plans and pursue solutions that preserve the historic dignity and public trust embodied in the people's house. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we will hear from Abigail Bellows. Abigail Bellows represents Common Cause, so you will have five minutes to provide your testimony.

Thanks, Megan, and thank you, Commissioners. I am the Senior Policy Director for Anti-Corruption and Accountability at Common Cause, a nonpartisan grassroots organization that for more than 50 years has been upholding core values of American democracy. On behalf of our 1 million members across the country with offices in 23 states, we are angered by the president's ballroom construction. And I want to highlight how this project raises serious ethical concerns about influence peddling and corruption. Let's talk about what this project really represents. The White House, as we've heard, is the people's house. It represents our shared history and our government's responsibility to serve the public, not wealthy donors. But the president is trying to pay for his $400 million ballroom through checks from mega donors and corporate titans like Lockheed Martin and Amazon. This is not just a construction project. It's a golden invitation for corruption. Many of the corporations funding the glitzy ballroom have business before the federal government right now, including companies under federal investigation or competing for government contracts. That is a massive conflict of interest. Let's not kid ourselves. These donors aren't doling out millions to bankroll the president's pet project out of the goodness of their heart. We all must ask, what do they expect in return? Because that's how pay-to-play politics works. Making donations buys you access to power. That power may come in the form of pardons for crimes like money laundering. It may come in the form of hefty contracts. It may come simply through privileged access, which enables corporate interests to sway the very regulators who should be acting independently. Sometimes there's an explicit quid pro quo, but other times it's an implied understanding. You'll scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Either way, government decisions are being auctioned off to wealthy donors, which leaves the rest of us wondering who our government is working for. And to have even the appearance of impropriety in the people's house, in the ultimate sacred symbol of our democracy, represents a deep violation of public trust. The White House should not be for sale. And while all this is happening, people are struggling The costs are rising. We are having Americans who can't afford rent, groceries, healthcare. And that's why people are speaking out about a $400 million price tag here. More than 134,000 Americans have signed common causes petition to call for an investigation into the financing of Trump's ballroom. We all deserve to know who is funding this project. All of the donors right now, some are still listed as anonymous, which opens the door to influence peddling by foreign governments and criminal organizations. We need to know how much each donor is contributing and whether those donors have received any government contracts, favorable enforcement actions or other potential kickbacks since they made their donation. We are calling on Congress to launch a full investigation into the funding behind this ballroom and pass the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act, which has already been introduced in both chambers and would ban presidents from soliciting corporate donations for projects like this. In closing, this isn't just about the White House as a building. It's also about the White House as a symbol of our government. We cannot have the financing of a building renovation erode the trust in our government. Each member of this commission has a responsibility to pause this project, regain public trust, recuse yourself if you cannot vote independently, and help protect the people's house so that our government stays in the hands of the people. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we will hear from William Bates. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to this esteemed board. It's important work that you do, and I respect that. And as a board member of the National Trust of Historic Preservation and former president of the American Institute of Architects, I'd like to challenge the NCPC to thoroughly and thoughtfully carry out its duty to ensure the modernization of the White House East Wing meet the highest standards of architectural design sensitivity, balance, and proportion, as is warranted in a project of such national stature. As currently proposed, the overwhelming scale and faux classical facade of the ballroom will undermine the historic architectural significance of our White House and disrupt the Founding Fathers' original campus design intentions. Likewise, previous encroachments, such as that of the Treasury, are a poor excuse to totally obscure the symbolic sight lines between the White House and the Capitol building, which was originally planned in Lafont's original street grid. The intentional design of our Capitol is rooted in symbolic architectural traditions established by classical ancient Greek and Roman design principles of that grid. The intentional design has been built and respected by our founding fathers, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. While presidential ballroom may be long overdue, the project should not be haphazardly expedited at the expense of centuries of well-established planning and regulatory processes. Our nation's history and our future deserve more dignity, consideration, and due diligence I respectfully oppose the design as submitted and implore the NCPC to demand further design options that respect the historic integrity of the people's White House campus. The answer is not in hiding its architectural shortcomings with landscape. The modest revisions offered today are not sufficient to address the major design deficiencies already outlined. So in support of all of those other speakers who've preceded me, I encourage you to do your job and take your time to do it right. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Bates.

Mr. Chairman, we can now entertain questions for the previous four witnesses. So that would be Carl, Elefante, Aileen Mitchell, Abigail Bellows, and William Bates.

Do any commissioners have questions for any of our previous witnesses? Okay. Hearing none, I would note that some of the comments we're receiving extend far beyond the scope of this Commission's jurisdiction and its ambit. We're not, you know, roving building court uh we deal with uh with design issues with planning issues uh with uh architectural issues certainly um but some of the comments obviously are trending a bit far afield of that uh while others have been uh quite instructive and insightful um so i would uh i would thank the witnesses who just presented and uh megan we can proceed to the next batch

Great, so the next group, I'm gonna call on John Gollinger, John Casper, Tom Scheiner, and Jonathan Herz. John Gollinger, we'll start with you. You're representing Public Citizen, so you will have five minutes to provide your testimony.

Thank you. My name is John Gollinger, and I speak to you today on behalf of Public Citizen. Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. The fix is in for this project and this vote. When President Trump appointed three White House officials, White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair, White House Office of Management and Budget Associate Director Stuart Levenbach, and White House Staff Secretary William Sharpe to the NCPC commission seat last July, that put them in a position to take the president's pet projects, ram them through, and rubber stamp them. Those appointments were not just a crude political power play. They were unlawful, and they destroy the credibility of the vote on this project if those individuals vote for it. The section of the National Capital Planning Act that Congress designed to establish this commission, specifically 40 USC 8711B1B, requires that only, quote, citizens with experience in city or regional planning, end quote, are eligible to be appointed by the president to NCPC commission seats. Given the highly specialized mission of this commission to engage in extensive and often intricate planning decisions, clearly this seems designed to ensure that this commission is led by members who are qualified enough to understand what they're being presented with and know what they're doing. However, none of those individuals had that required planning experience when they were appointed to this commission by the president. Therefore, we call on them to recuse themselves from any vote on the White House Ballroom Project rather than risk jeopardizing the legal validity of that vote. They should then resign from this commission so the president may find and appoint qualified citizen commissioners that the law requires. If they don't, it will be clear to all that the vote to approve the Ballroom Project fix was in President Trump's White House ballroom project has been a fiasco from the start. When the White House announced it in July of 2025, the president claimed nothing about the existing White House would be changed. Three months later, he demolished a third of it. Without regard to the law, NCPC was not notified or consulted until the project was underway. Since Mr. Blair, Mr. Levenbach, and Mr. Scharf worked then as now at the White House, I call upon them to answer today to the rest of the commission what they knew and when they knew it. If they knew the East Wing was going to be demolished before it was, why did they withhold that information from the rest of the NCPC commission and staff who under the law should have been advised? A massive amount of money has flowed into the White House ballroom project from corporations, billionaires and an unknown number of secret donors through what a federal judge has called a, quote, Rube Goldberg contraption, end quote. That clearly seems designed to evade congressional and public oversight and shield the donors and recipients of the money from scrutiny. According to news reports, the expectation of those donors is their names will be etched on the White House ballroom as part of the ballroom's brick or stone. It's outrageous that the administration would engrave the names of corporations with government contracts who gave them checks on the White House like a big tacky advertising billboard. That's surely within your purview, and I ask NCPC to explicitly prohibit them from doing that. The proposed White House ballroom project before you is wildly out of whack with the existing White House, as you've heard from so many people, experts up and down the spectrum. It's too tall. It's too bulky. It will block public views. It fails to respect the dignity of America. And it fails to, quote, best promote public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and the general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development, end quote. As many of you will recognize, that is the mission and the objective of this commission, according to the National Capital Planning Act, which created the commission as it exists today. Since the White House Ballroom Project fails to meet those objectives, we call on NCPC to reject it, send it back to the drawing board, and ensure that they start over and get it right. Thank you.

Yeah, I'm going to break in and respond to Mr. Gollinger directly since he's challenged my credentials to serve on this commission. First of all, sir, you're just completely wrong. I was appointed because I did have the qualifications necessary to serve on the commission, and that's in fact why the president chose me. In addition to a long career in private practice as an attorney, where I practiced extensively in the area of real estate law, I also previously served as policy director to a governor of Missouri, where I was involved in a substantial rewrite of that state's historic preservation tax credit program, which is the largest state historic tax preservation program in the country. I also represented the governor's interests on the Missouri Development Finance Board. The Missouri Housing Development Commission dealt extensively with real estate tax credit programs all across the state. And I also personally was responsible for designating that state's opportunity zones in 2018. So to say that I lack the credentials to serve on this commission is frankly insulting. Your testimony, as many others have, has far exceeded the scope of jurisdiction of this commission in terms of the concerns that you've raised. I wish you a very good day, and I thank you for appearing here today. If Mr. Blair and Mr. Levenbach, commissioners Blair and Levenbach also want to respond as to their qualifications, I assure you that they are every bit as legally entitled to serve on this commission pursuant to the president's appointments as I am. And they can speak for themselves on that front. But that's really all I have to say there.

I would love to hear their credentials. Mr. Blair presented zero at the first meeting. You did say you were the policy director there. for the governor, and I looked at your campaign literature when you ran for attorney general, you described that job very differently. You said that as policy director, you work to cut taxes, wasteful spending, reduce the burden of state regulations, pass needed tort reform, and advance pro-life policy initiatives. Now you want to characterize that as as planning experience.

Now, Mr. Bollinger, your time's expired. I'm just going to say the fact that you would look at campaign literature and say that that is an extensive description or a comprehensive description of my experience as policy director to the governor of a major state, that's frankly absurd. I think we're done here. I'll challenge the record of someone who's not qualified. And if you are... If you want to sue me, I'll see you in court. And I think that extends, you know, that's the end of this issue. If Commissioner Blair, Commissioner Levenbach want to speak to their credentials, we're happy to entertain them at this time. Otherwise, we can move on to the next witness.

Okay. Next, we have John Casper representing the East Wing Restoration Project. John Casper, you'll have five minutes to provide your testimony.

john you're muted there we go so good afternoon my name is john casper i'm founder and president of east wing restoration project i'm here today to voice our strong opposition to the white house all room project as currently proposed i'd like to thank you first for the opportunity to comment on this important project Whether it's an individual or the national trust for historic preservation, the American public needs to be given the opportunity to offer comments, insight, and guidance on such projects. As we know, the White House has been stated multiple times now as a public space owned by we, the American people. Presidents are merely temporary guests, thus required by law permission to make modifications to the building, especially at the scale we see here. I'd also like to thank Dr. Scott Parker Architects and the National Trust for the comments and more reasonable design alternatives they have submitted for consideration. Their input covers many of the same points I was to cover today, specifically the square foot industry standards they highlighted and the overall symmetry of the White House grounds. Since I appear here today representing a private nonprofit, I'm not beholden to any special interest political party or any individual. Therefore, I can speak candidly. A person can tell just by viewing the White House grounds when East and West wings were added, the design was purposeful and done with careful consideration of what the White House represents. When the American flag is presented with other flags out of honor and respect, it is at the center and is the highest point of the group. And so it should be with the executive mansion. In my 30 years as an industrial designer, I've participated in thousands of design reviews. Not a single time do I recall a designer submitting to a client a one-off standalone concept to solve the identified problem. But that is what has been presented to the American public. There are always multiple concepts and iterations submitted for review. I've recently learned that a similar process has actually been followed here. So I respectfully request that those preliminary plans also be made available for public view and public comment. I believe that everyone present here today, as well as millions of Americans across the country, deep down really know that this 90,000 square foot proposal is grossly out of scale, disrespectful of the White House and borderline obscene. Even an undergraduate architecture would never propose such an out of proportion plan. The structure is so outsized that the elegant symmetry of the roadway loop within the South lawn had to be deformed to make a move on the symmetry of the entire parcel. So perfectly laid out by Frederick law, Olmsted is destroyed. The attempt to solve the problem of inadequate public event space has been lost in the exercise of stroking one man's ego. Surely Mr. Baroness, you can do better. Your team can do better. Do you really want this to be your legacy? As so well communicated in the comments presented by Mr. Parker, the National Trust, the new east wing can and should be significantly smaller than this current both in footprint and overall volume. I urge you to give careful thought and consideration to this input and all of those that have spoken here today. There is significant refinement that still needs to be done and questions that remain to be answered. I will conclude with some of those questions. If they've been addressed, I again request that information be made available for public review. Has the appropriate research been conducted to determine realistic office space requirements for the current and future First Ladies and First Gentlemen? Have maintenance and utility costs been analyzed for such an enormous building that will only be utilized limited number of times a year. And again, referencing Mr. Parker's comments, are the grand staircases actually functional and necessary, or are they just eye candy? Can the oversized cell particle be reduced in size or eliminated altogether? And of course, where will his name appear? That is not shown anywhere, but we all know it will be there. Remember, the east wing that stood humbly last fall was torn down in a matter of days. same can be done to this man's monument so let's save everybody a lot of time money grief and anger and do this right the first time thank you again for this opportunity thank you mr casper thank you next we'll have tom scheiner you have three minutes to provide your testimony

My name is Tom Shiner. I'm a fellow of the American Institute of Architects and a longtime member of the DC chapter of the AAIA. After beginning my career as an associate in a DuPont Circle architecture practice, I opened my own firm, Thomas S. Shiner Architect, more than four decades ago. I'm licensed to practice architecture in the District of Columbia and in other jurisdictions. My career is focused on residential architecture. I've designed dozens of projects with relationships to historic structures in sensitive historic areas. I have presented designs for review here and abroad, including to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. I'm qualified to speak as an expert to the NCPC about the proposed addition to the nation's most famous historic residence, the White House. Before designing a project, architects are trained to first study the site. A project site and context will limit and often dictate what can be built. The size and shape of a site will certainly determine the size and shape of what can be built on it. The predictable daily path of the sun will strongly influence the design. One of the principles that guide an architect is respect for the existing structure. structures on and around this around the site the design of the proposed ballroom does not respect the existing structures on and around the site at 25 times the size of the east room that once stood there it overwhelms the existing historic structure although it is attached to a residence that is modest in scale its typology That of an event hall or convention scale center will despoil the residential character of the White House. Having seen a presentation of the proposed design published in the Washington Post, I first noticed how confusingly similar the proposed massing and arch fenestration are to the adjacent neoclassical treasury building. The proposed ballroom bears a closer relationship to the 600,000 square foot treasury building than to the 55,000 square foot residence to which it is attached. Second, the proposed ballroom is so large that it requires introducing a kink in the now symmetrical oval driveway, violating one of the elegant features of the south lawn of the White House. To build this ballroom in its current design will be a mistake, in my opinion, ruining the view of the South portico and the entire White House composition from the ellipse, the lovely oval green space to the south and on axis with the portico. If I found myself alone in thinking the proposed design is unbalanced, I would be surprised. Any architect can tell you that the mass of the proposed ballroom

If you want to conclude your comments in a couple seconds, sir, I think your time's expired, unfortunately.

I'm sorry I ran over. I would like to read one more paragraph, if I may.

If you could proceed quickly, sir.

Along the way in my career, I've had the good fortune to have lived, worked, and studied in two other capital cities, Copenhagen, Denmark, and Berlin, Germany. I've observed processes by which cities take serious care of historic buildings, vistas, planning, and construction. For example, I learned that Berlin requires architects working there to erect full-scale mock-ups of a new public's building's facade to elicit public comment about the proposed details and materials. A presentation of a large sample of the intended building skin and administration, along with plans and views of the project, is required to be made to the public with the intention of testing and making clear the physical and visual impact of the design. Criticism and discussion of the proposed design is invited with the assumption that alternative solutions may provide improvements on the original this expensive the approval process is about getting it done right. Architects appreciate this opportunity for review because they know that they have support for the design that is finally built. Thanks for this opportunity. Sorry, I went over.

Thank you, Mr. Shiner.

Thank you. And next, we'll have Jonathan Herz. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jonathan Herz. As a longtime federal government architect with extensive experience working on historic federal buildings here in Washington, and as a longtime resident of the city, I care deeply about the quality, dignity, and stewardship of our nation's capital. I urge the commission to disapprove the proposed White House ballroom project because it's inconsistent with NCPC's goals and legal responsibilities and would harm both the historic and civic character of the White House. The White House was designed as a statement of Republican governance, a dignified executive residence, intentionally in contrast to the palatial homes of European princes and tyrants. A 90,000 square foot ballroom is entirely a different character, less presidential residence than convention center. It would distort both the scale and the symbolism of the nation's chief executive's home. As Rebecca Miller mentioned, there's no functional need for this project. Only a few blocks away stands the Andrew Mellon Auditorium, a magnificent executive branch facility seating a thousand guests. If the administration needs a grand space for official events, that building already fulfills the requirement. If greater connection to the executive is desired, perhaps it could be renamed to honor our presidents. Duplicating such a hall so near the White House contradicts the commission's longstanding principles of efficient, coordinated planning. NCPC's legal review authority over new construction projects on federal property within the national capital region, including the White House grounds, must be meaningfully maintained. For decades, major White House projects have been reviewed here before construction for consistency with the federal elements of the comprehensive plan, massing height, site design, security, circulation, and above all, relationship to the historic segment. In scale and bulk, overwhelm the site and block L'Enfant's intended connection to the Capitol. Architectural detailing is mismatched, using Corinthian orders where Ionic were appropriate, and a grand staircase to a landing with no entrance, the supercilious design gesture of what should be the nation's most dignified address. Although the White House is exempt from mandatory Section 106 procedures, good design practice should still follow its principles. Identifying character-defining historic features, minimizing harm, ensuring context-sensitive outcomes. In bypassing those steps, this proposal disregards federal interests, the critical public viewshed surrounding the White House, the coherent landscape of President's Park, and the symbolic civic dignity of the Executive Mansion. The White House grounds envisioned by George Washington and Pierre L'Enfant express democracy through restraint and order. A project of this magnitude would betray that founding vision. For all those reasons, functional redundancy and consistency with the comprehensive plan can harm to the historical and symbolic dignity of the executive mansion. I respectfully urge the commission to disapprove this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Herz.

Thank you. So at this time, we would ask if the commission have any questions for the last four witnesses, John Gollinger, John Casper, Tom Shiner, or Jonathan Herz.

Do any commissioners have any questions for these witnesses? Hearing and seeing none, we'll thank those witnesses. Megan, you'd mentioned to me earlier that we're going to need to take a break at some point in these proceedings to reset our video to ensure that it's properly recorded. Would now be the time to do that, or should we proceed with another set of witnesses?

I think if we proceed with another set of witnesses and then we'll have, I think, all of the witnesses who have shown up thus far. And so then we can take a recess to try and see if anyone else is going to join that we had to skip over initially.

That sounds perfect. So let's if you call the next witness up, that would be that would be great.

Yes. The next group is Stephanie Beninato, Lawrence Wisniewski, Jamila Way and Diane Marlin. Stephanie Beninato. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Thank you very much, Stephanie Beninato. I live in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I have a PhD in history. I'm a professional historian who's worked in historic preservation for over 45 years. I am strongly opposed to the... addition of the ballroom to the White House because it violates several historic preservation standards and ignores architectural standards as well. And to say that it's part of the campus, in fact, to be accurate, it is an addition to the White House, despite the fact that it has a colonnade or hallway that gives it some distance. as stated by others the mass height and choice of architectural details overwhelms the original structure which is the white house the people's house and on the south side it is quite proud or in front of the white house blocking the view of the white house from the u.s capital this visual action axis was an important planning element as people have mentioned and a symbolic reminder of the balance between the executive and legislative branches, which I think we actually need to keep in mind today. And I do appreciate it because the East Wing was taken down without following the rule of law. The Arts Commission approved the plan, the final plan, again, not following procedural rules. This commission is at least following procedural rules, but from comments made, I'm wondering if people's minds are really open to the comments that are being made today. The proposed portico is 160% larger than the White House portico. The height of the second level of the proposed ballroom exceeds that of the White House, making it read as if it's more important than the White House itself. The use of Corinthian columns is much more pretentious an attention drawing than the ionic columns on the White House and the Treasury Building. And again, according to historic preservation standards, this addition should be compatible with the White House without overwhelming it. And landscaping and or pedestrian views are not really part of your consideration. What is part of your consideration is the building design plan itself and how it is compatible with the original historic structure that is the White House. The size of the building is out of proportion and many of the alleged needs could be met by modifying the design or deleting them. such as mentioned the 40,000 square foot portico that goes nowhere with the outside steps that are not ADA accessible, and there's no doorways there. And that is really what's blocking the view from the Capitol building. And it also interferes with the gardens designed by Frederick Law Olmstead, who is arguably the most important landscape architect in US history. The ballroom, as mentioned, is oversized. The architectural stands are 10 to 15 square feet per person. This is 50% larger than the highest size required. I just have one more. If I could just finish, I would appreciate it. the kitchen itself is two and a half times what is needed by architectural standards to serve a thousand people and if you remove the portico decrease the size of the ballroom in the kitchen and put the kitchen underground you could save you could reduce this by 38 and it would be much more in keeping i urge you to require a smaller size design thank you thank you ms beninato

Next, we have Lawrence Wisniewski. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.

The members of this commission, thank you for allowing me to speak before you and to allow my comments. My name is Lawrence Wisniewski. I'm a retired retail clerk. The White House is the people's house. It does not belong to whoever the current resident is. The architects who planned and laid out the city along with its buildings had a vision that was both grand and simple. the trifecta of government legislative judicial and executive have their own edifices that represent the power within and yet demonstrate collectively each branch is co-equal the white house was not built to be an opulent 17th century palace of versailles it was built to serve as a simple yet elegant home for the president and family to live Additionally, it is the place to conduct the business and duties of the executive branch. I do not deny that improvements and upgrades are necessary for buildings over time. Protocols are in place to ensure that improvements are made in accordance with the law and best practices to ensure the preservation and historic significance of the buildings being remodeled or renovated. according to the according to multiple news reports no permit was issued nor was public discussion prior to the destruction of the east wing it is a clear violation of their of the very protocols the proposed ballroom design will dwarf existing historic structural removed sight lines that are part of the plan of the original designers. It is a gaudy design that does not represent our country. It is an attempt to create some sort of physical legacy of the leader. the current resident, I should say, we the people do not need these kinds of legacies left by our leaders. We want legacies left to the benefit of all the people of this great nation. As time moves forwards, monuments, structures, and statues can and should be built to honor leaders and those who served our country in positive ways. Current leaders should not be allowed to glorify themselves by constructing such monuments. I respectfully ask the Commission to reject this design. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Next, we have Jamila Way. You will have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Hello. Thank you for having me. Um, I am, I happen to be an attorney, a planning attorney, but I'm here as a citizen and every time I see the images of the white house, as it currently sits, um, my stomach is it's it turns it's historic place. Um, there's been a blatant disregard instruction, a federal property. And in this development, there's no consideration for how the site was before they destroyed it. I can understand, as everyone has said, the concept of improving and creating a ballroom, but I don't understand why we can't consider putting it underground to preserve the open park concept that George Washington the designers planned for the space it's supposed to be a park and to have a building that protrudes into the setback and into the open space um up to the drive is just mind-boggling i don't understand the goal i don't understand the use of the building it seems to exceed a ballroom so i really would ask the commissioners to really think it through and to consider that there should still be a restoration component to the destruction of part of the historic building, as well as preserving the original design and intention of that space and what the founders created and the fact that it is a national landmark, that property, and consider that in this whole process. It really breaks my heart every time I look at it.

Thank you, Ms. Way.

Next, we have Diane Marlin. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Diane Marlin. I'm a retired mayor from Urbana, Illinois, a regular visitor to Washington, D.C., and I last visited the White House in January of 2023. My comments today are based on information provided by MCPC and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Like many others, I believe this project is far too large for the site. The design has three times the mass of the iconic White House. It blocks the sight line between the Capitol and White House along Pennsylvania Avenue, and it disrupts historic landscape design. In one fell swoop, it breaks the historic connection between the legacy of Hoban, L'Enfant, and Olmsted. The good news is this project can be reduced in size and scale without compromising any of the proposed functions. We've heard the ballroom and kitchen areas are significantly oversized based on industry standards. The ballroom interior ceiling height is 40 feet tall and other areas in the structure have ceilings as high as 23 feet. That's over two stories. Again, the size and scale of the project can be reduced while still maintaining the desired functions. We've been asked to evaluate the East Wing and a lot of time actually was spent today on looking at the East Wing project as it is framed by trees and shrubs and looking at it from street view from the north and south. That's because this design depends on landscaping to hide its bulk. from pedestrian view. Now we all know that the true measure of character is what you do when nobody's watching. And I believe the true measure of the East Wing project is what it looks like as built without the trees and bushes hiding it. This project should be scaled appropriately and in proportion rather than use landscaping to mask the disproportionate and unbalanced design. And finally, I'm concerned about the colossal south portico terrace and staircase. They really do appear to have no purpose other than to add to the mass of the structure. They should be removed and they could be removed without any significant damage to this design. The ballroom floor, as we heard, is 12 feet above the terrace and the portico and the kitchen is below it. There's no internal connection between the interior rooms and the portico. There are no functioning doors from the ballroom to the south portico, and those 24 massive Corinthian columns will block much of the view from the south ballroom windows. um the and finally that i think the staircase is uh 40 feet wide it's a staircase to nowhere this entire feature could be removed as was pointed out by mr bernard today that it was it's an aesthetic decision and i think the proper decision was just be to remove it that would greatly reduce the mass and the imbalance in this overall project so in summary i urge you to send this back to the drawing board do not be in a rush to approve this on april 2nd reduce the mass footprint and scale of the project resize the ballroom and kitchen to industry standards rearrange things internally remove the fake south portico and that could reduce overall mass by up to 40 percent as was estimated by the national trust More as, as importantly, this is an opportunity to preserve L'Enfant sightlines between the Capitol and the White House. That's time. I just have a couple more. To defer to Hoban's elegant White House design and maintain Olmstead's visions for the grounds. Please prioritize accessibility for people of all ages and abilities. Take the time to get this right. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Martin.

And next we have Ellen Shadle. You will have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Thank you. Good afternoon, commission chair and members. My name is Ellen Shadle and I'm speaking in opposition to the proceeding of the proposed ballroom. in response to the how and why of the ballroom. The hows and the whys must be addressed to determine if the what, the ballroom itself, is justified and only when the what has been justified is a procedure to commence. Page one of the FONSI states that the justification for this ballroom is to meet presidential priorities for capacity and protect the historic integrity and cultural landscape of the White House. The word presidential is not capitalized here, so the priorities alluded to are not those of the current president, but those I will attribute to Frank Lanz and refer to him as the author of the Fonzie. With that, Mr. Lanz does not articulate what priorities are presidential in nature and how those priorities were determined. He also does not explain or describe the historic integrity and cultural landscape of the White House that is mentioned. These are distinctions that are relevant and necessary in evaluating the asserted justification for and purpose of the ballroom. Without presidential priorities being defined and without knowing the criteria applied to historic integrity and cultural landscape, it is impossible to make a thorough and precise assessment. Additionally, on page one of the FONSI is a heading of deconstruction and design. Let's be clear, the East Wing was not deconstructed. While there is no standardized definition of deconstruction, definitions include language such as careful disassembly and creating minimal waste. This is not what happened to the East Wing. The East Wing was demolished and for thoroughness and precision, transparency and accountability, it shall be identified and referred to accordingly. To refer to the demolition of the East Wing as a deconstruction deflects ownership of the demolition from those who approved and managed it. This suggests that they are not proud of their role in the demolition and choose a different and inaccurate word to diminish their guilt in how the East Wing was deleted from the landscape. The why of the FONSI offers an explanation, not a justification. So the why of the FONSI does not hold up to challenge. As for how the actions were to have been taken in response to the needs or desires regarding the East Wing, the how was determined long before President Trump was president the first time or currently. It is not for the President of the United States nor any member of this Commission to dismiss, ignore, usurp, or disregard the procedure. It is empirically documented that the decisions regarding how to repair, restore, renovate, or replace the East Wing have not followed the procedural requirements in place. While no process is perfect and without friction or barriers, at the time of any proposed action, the current process is to be followed. To the extent that established procedural requirements were disregarded, this warrants those who felt they were exempt from those requirements to be held accountable. Disregarding regulatory or procedural requirements impacts public trust and the social contract we hold each other to. There is much conversation about the abandonment of social and political norms as a result of President Trump's unwillingness to acknowledge, let alone adhere to, not only norms, but established policies, procedures, and laws. That conversation has admittedly been blunted by repetition. I'm almost done. To that end, and particularly to the presidential appointees of this commission, as much as President Trump exercises baffling entitlement to swat at regulations like an annoying insect, you also possess the entitlement to willfully recognize and adhere to the procedural regulations required for a project like this in appreciation for the larger ecosystem in which they are necessary for our nation's civic health. Thank you.

so with that i would ask if the commission has any questions for the last five witnesses uh stephanie beninato lawrence weissnewski jamila way diane marlin or ellen shadle uh do any commissioners have questions for any of these witnesses

Well, then I would thank all of the witnesses. Ms. Shadle has a remarkable talent to speak extremely quickly. I found that very impressive. And I'd like to thank you guys for taking the time out of your busy schedules to testify before this commission. Madam Secretary, would this be a good time for us to take a quick recess before we continue? Yes, it would be. okay um with that uh let's uh let's take a 20-minute recess and reconvene uh at about 4 20 if that uh if that works for the other members of the commission and of course ncpc staff and uh excellent everybody okay with that a logistical question we just go off camera during the 20 minutes or we get off and rejoin uh just go off camera and mute yourself

And for those who are watching on the live stream, when you come back at 420, you will need to refresh your screen.

Okay. Thank you, Megan. We will see you all in a bit. Thank you very much.

We are live streaming now. So Mr. Chairman, we can come back into session.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. I believe there is a quorum present, so we'll proceed back, start off where we left off. Madam Secretary, if you could call the next public witnesses forward.

Yes. Just making sure that they are in the room. So the first witness that we'll hear from is Chris Brown. Chris, you have three minutes to provide your testimony.

Hello? Okay. I'm Chris Brown. I'm representing myself. I'm here to register my objection to the East Wing modernization project purely for reasons of aesthetics. The ballroom, if built, would be twice the size of the White House and would obscure views of the executive mansion from many angles. Over the past years, I've seen many changes to the White House grounds which offend me. Let me name just a few. The green press tents on the north lawn, the largely unused handicap ramp on the north steps, the sheer size and number of guard boots, the 13 foot high fence, the two huge new flag poles, which are usually seen on used car lots. These are examples of unnecessary visual clutter that have been added under various administrations without much objection. These additions pale in size and scope to the ballroom that is being discussed today. Consider the fact that the Truman balcony is barely noticeable and went through many reviews. As someone once said, if you have a complaint, bring us a solution. Well, I have a solution. If President Trump wants his ballroom, he can have it. Like the Capitol Visitor Center, put it underground. This solution preserves the integrity of the White House grounds while giving the president the space for entertaining he desires, and he can have any size ballroom as long as it's underground. I'm sure that the objection to this would be that it's too late to start over. Well, whose fault would that be? The president should have submitted the plans before construction started. Since this addition will live forever, it is well worth the effort and added expense to get it right now. I urge the commissioners to reject this plan and I urge President Trump to vary the ballroom. I would just like to add that when it comes to decorating anything, the National Mall, the White House, Washington, D.C., always remember, less is more. And I thank the commissioners for their time.

Mr. Thank you, Mr. Brown. We appreciate you being with us. Ms.

Thank you. And next, we have Roberto Barretta. Barretta, you are representing Worldwide Projects, and you have five minutes to provide your testimony.

Hello.

Good afternoon, commissioners and fellow Americans. We are here, Roberto Barreto and Antonio Manzano from Caracas, Venezuela, with all our hearts open to you. We understand that our vision may be seen beyond your objectives, but it is very important to magnify the purposes. We recognize that the new age is spiritual. Our vision is to offer a futuristic proposal to the marvelous teamwork you lead to create a finishing of the east wing of the White House with an architectonic platonic volume enhancing the Palladian architecture with a freedom dome, an icosahedron with sides made up of lead diaphragms, which surround a transparent platform where citizens live a 360 degrees extrasensory experience in which guests will enjoy the theme to be presented, impacting the spirit of the audience. The Freedom Room will be below the platform. It is important to note that this volume will generate a global and cosmic alignment and orientation with a universal energy network. There will be a torch in the center, symbol of enlightenment, wisdom and knowledge that will always support freedom. All service areas will be underground. The urban planning of Washington DC is ideal for updating its iconic culture with its streets offering marvelous perspectives. All major cities in the world have monuments representing their identity. The White House deserves to have the best one, A number one. It is important to note that the energy project aims to balance the resonance of the frequency vibrate in the right way to help us raise our consciousness and maintain healing standards and well-being all men of goodwill will feel inspired visiting freedom dome to reach higher goals for humankind Thank you all from Caracas, Venezuela, Roberto Barreto, the architect of this project, and myself, Antonio Manzano. Thank you and God bless you. Thank you very much. Good afternoon and thanks for the liberato.

Thank you.

Thank you for joining us today.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes all of the witnesses that we have. So if the Commission has any questions for these two witnesses, Chris Brown or Roberto Barreto,

uh do any commissioners have any questions for these uh the the model that was shown wasn't that clear to me could they give us a little better what they had in mind from stone uh i'm not just curious i think that's a question for mr barretto and and your colleague uh commissioner dixon would like to know a little bit more about what you're uh what you're proposing okay

Our purpose is to connect energetically.

I understand that part, what I'm trying to get at. I see the dome, but where would people be placed? Where would they live? In the platform, in the middle. It's a transparent platform and

Partially it will be underground too. So all the services that you see on the ISOCRED, on this volume, will be LED screens where you can project any theme that you want. The current technology.

The eating facility will be underground where the people will be fed underground. The sitting space will be underground. You want to see the underground? The seating space would be underground.

No, the seating space will be in the middle of the volume, in the middle.

Thank you. Thank you.

And underground, you can have projections as well. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. God bless you.

Thank you. Do any other commissioners have, sorry, I keep choking on something. Do any other commissioners have questions for either of these two presenters? Hearing none, Megan, do we have any other witnesses who have signed up to testify publicly at this time?

We do not. None of the other witnesses have joined the meeting.

Okay. Well, in that case, we'd like to thank Mr. Brown, Mr. Barreto, and your colleague. We do have a motion on the table that Commissioner Dixon made at the start of these proceedings with respect to preliminary and excuse me, preliminary and final approval of this project. I would propose that at this time we hold that motion over until the beginning of our next meeting on April 2nd and take it up for final consideration at that time. I don't know if we need a vote on that proposal, Megan. You're our resident parliamentarian.

Yes, we will need someone to make a motion to table the original motion and a second, and then I'll take the vote by roll call.

Okay. Hearing Commissioner Dixon's motion, do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. With that, I think we should proceed to a roll call vote.

Yes. The motion to table the original motion to approve the East Wing Modernization Project was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Vice Chairman Levenbach. Commissioner Cozart?

Yes.

Commissioner Schaefer?

Yes.

Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo? Commissioner Argo?

Yes.

Vice-chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Blair? Commissioner Ingrassia?

Yes.

Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

It's Commissioner Mendelson, yes.

Commissioner Mendelson?

It's okay. We play tag team.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes, ma'am.

Commissioner McGowan? Yes. so um with that mr chairman the motion to table commissioner dixon's motion regarding the east wing modernization project until the april uh meeting passes awesome thank you megan i believe that uh commissioner stidham had a question yes commissioner

Chairman, I just wanted for the public that is listening, should we speak to the discussion that we're having in the April meeting and whether or not there is public comment associated with that? It may not be clearly understood.

Megan, correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that we've just essentially exhausted public testimony on this motion or on this decision item. Yes.

That's correct. So at this point, the public option for public comment and for public testimony has been closed on this item. So it will just be at the April meeting for the commission's consideration and deliberations.

the the way i envision this proceeding is that when we reconvene in april uh we'll have a discussion amongst ourselves as as commissioners uh obviously that'll be you know it's a public meeting um but we'll have a discussion uh ourselves uh on this item um obviously each commissioner will be be given time to speak and uh we can all uh express our our views and then we'll proceed to uh to to a final vote on the motion that's on the table which is preliminary and final approval of the ballroom. Is that, I think I'm reading this correctly, Megan, is that your understanding as well?

Yes, that's my understanding as well.

Perfect. Well, with that, I believe we've, oh, sorry.

No, that's okay. I understood it as such, but I think there was some confusion by the public. So I appreciate you addressing it here so there is, it's clear.

Perfect. Well, with that, I believe we've exhausted our agenda for today. As I said, as we reconvened, I very much appreciate the commissioners who have stuck with us through what's been certainly my longest NCPC meeting since I joined the commission a little over a year ago. I think we've heard some interesting testimony today. I applaud the project team, Shalom Baranis in particular, for the presentation that they gave earlier. I think it was actually a really fascinating conversation about the nature of the spaces that we're dealing with here and this plan in particular. And with that, if there are no further comments or questions for members of the commission, I think we can proceed to adjourn. Do any other commissioners want to be heard at this time? Hearing none, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all, and I'll see you on April 2nd, if not before.