Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon and welcome to the National Capital Planning Commission's April 2nd, 2026 open session. First, Madam Secretary, can you please take the roll call?

Yes, Commissioner Cozart. Commissioner Salicis. Commissioner Stidham.

Here.

Commissioner Argo. Here. Vice Chairman Levenbach.

Here.

Chairman Scharf.

Here.

Commissioner Blair.

Here.

Administrator Forst.

Here.

Commissioner Dixon. Chairman Mendelson? Commissioner Henderson?

Present.

Commissioner Giacchetti?

Here.

Marcel Acosta, Executive Director, and Diane Sullivan, current Planning Division Director, are also in the meeting. And with that, we have a quorum.

Noting the presence of a quorum, I'd like to call this meeting to order. This meeting is live streamed and will be available, as is our custom, in a few days on the NCPC's website. If there are no objections from commissioners present, the agenda as posted is adopted as the order of business. And now let's all stand for 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. At each April meeting, we elect a vice chairman, and the commission also approves a third member of our executive committee. Let's start with the election of a vice chairman. Stuart Levenbach has been serving as vice chairman since last year. I'd like to ask Stuart if he's willing to continue serving as vice chairman.

I'll be happy to do it.

Thank you, Stuart. With that, is there a motion to approve Stuart Levenbach as the vice so moved? Do we have a second on the floor? Is there anyone who wishes to be heard on this item? Hearing no one, can the secretary please confirm the motion and the second and take the vote by roll call?

Yes, the motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Administrator Forrest. With that, Commissioner Salasas? Commissioner Stidham?

Yes.

Commissioner Argo? Yes. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Blair?

Yes.

Administrator Forrest? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Giacchetti?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Thank you. This motion is carried. Congratulations, Vice Chairman Stuart Levenbach. Would you like to say anything?

Well, I just say it's been a pleasure already. In the nine months or so I've been working with all the commissioners here, and especially being in Maryland for the past now 20 years and going to so many of these places personally, it's really nice to be able to have a role in what it looks like and how it's planned. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. The next item on the agenda is for the Commission to approve the third member of our three-member Executive Committee. Commissioner Arrington-Dixon, who I believe is our longest-serving member on the Commission, has been serving as the third member of the Executive Committee for the last certainly as long as I've been on the Executive Committee. Is there a motion to approve Commissioner Arrington-Dixon as the third member of our Executive Committee?

So moved.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, could you please take the vote by roll call?

Yes. The motion was made by Commissioner Stidham and seconded by Commissioner Argo. Commissioner Salicis? Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Blair?

Yes.

Administrator Forrest? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Thank you very much and yes.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Giacchetti? Yes.

Yes.

I believe this motion has carried unanimously. Congratulations, Commissioner Dixon. It's been a pleasure serving with you, and I'm looking forward to continuing to serve with you on the Executive Committee. Are there any comments or statements you would like to make?

Not at this time.

Thank you, Commissioner. Your brevity is appreciated in this matter. Speaking of which, given the long agenda, sorry, the next item on the agenda is the report of the chairman. Given the long agenda, my chairman's report is short. I'll be discussing the east wing modernization issue on our agenda in more detail when we get there on the agenda. A couple housekeeping notes. I'd like to welcome Bob Solesis with the Department of War, serving in the department's ex officio seat here. He's joining us for our first meeting. We are very, very happy to have him. Welcome, Bob. We're looking forward to working with you. I'd also like to congratulate Commissioner Blair on the birth of his, I believe, fourth child on Monday. I think it really shows his dedication to the NCPC that he has abandoned his wife and large family to join us for what promises to be a barn burner of a meeting. I'd also like to report on a delegated item that I took action on this month. Certain authorities were delegated to me by the Commission on March 6, 2025. I approved the transfer of jurisdiction of lands earlier this month from the National Park Service to the District of Columbia Department of Transportation. The transferred issue is for two areas of land currently under the jurisdiction of NPS within Anacostia Park. The transfers will allow DDOT to reconstruct the existing Anacostia Avenue bridge over the former Pepco station cooling water inlet with two 12-foot travel lanes and a new 10-foot wide sidewalk. With that, we'll move on to Agenda Item 5, which is the report of the Executive Director, Marcel Acosta.

Thank you, Chair Sharp, and good afternoon. I just have one item today. We bid farewell to urban planner Brittany Drakeford, who joined NCPC in 2022 and served with us for four years. Brittany served as NCPC's representative to the D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustments and contributed to the Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful initiative, the Comprehensive Plan Update, Commemoration Planning, and our Internship Program. We thank Brittany for her many contributions to the agency and wish her the best as she completes her doctoral dissertation in urban and regional planning at the University of Maryland. And I look forward to calling her Dr. Brittany Brinkford soon. You have my written reports in your packets, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you, Marcel. Do any commissioners have any questions for our executive director? I will just echo Marcel's sentiments, wishing Brittany best of luck as she concludes, hopefully concludes her doctorate, and thank her for her service to this commission. Agenda item six is our legislative update from our secretary and esteemed general counsel, Megan Hoddle-Cox. Megan?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While there has been some movement on relevant legislation this month, none of it's time sensitive. So given the length of today's agenda, I will provide a detailed update on pending legislation to the commission next month. But I'm happy to answer any questions if commissioners have any.

Thank you, Megan. Do any commissioners have questions or comments for Megan at this time? Seeing none, we'll proceed to agenda item seven, which is our unfinished business from our last meeting. You may recall that when we closed our last meeting in March, we had a pending motion on the floor, which was a motion to approve preliminary and final site and building plans for the East Wing Modernization Project. That motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Schaefer and unanimously tabled for consideration at today's meeting. Before we get started, I do want to address Judge Leon's preliminary injunction in the lawsuit brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation regarding this project. As I read that injunction, which is, I should say, stayed for the next two weeks, which also includes ample exclusions to allow for some continued construction on the site. That order really does not impact our action here today. The NCPC is not a party to that lawsuit. The injunction doesn't speak to the NCPC review process. From my perspective, we have a project before us. We've been asked to review it, and that's really our job here today. And if there's no further objection or if there's no further desire to comment on Judge Leon's order, we'll move past that and continue our consideration of the East Wing Modernization Project at this time. The second note I would have before we begin our deliberations on this subject, As the Commission is aware, after our March meeting, there were a number of updates to that project. Most notably, the project applicants have now eliminated the stairs adjacent to the south portico of the proposed ballroom and have also modified the southwest corner stair to include a switchback. NCPC staff provided a brief addendum explaining the changes to the Commission yesterday, which was also posted on our website. Overall, the layout, other than those two modifications, is not substantially different than what we previously considered, and I will say that the proposed revisions actually do reflect a lot of the feedback that the project applicants heard from NCPC at that meeting. NCPC staff is of the opinion that this constitutes a significant improvement to the project, which will help preserve the hierarchy of the south elevation of the executive residence and just generally improve the project. view sheds, and I'd say symbolic, I'm trying to pick my words carefully here, the symbolic nature of the South Portico of the White House as it currently stands. Therefore, before we move into deliberation on this project as a whole, I'd like to move for an amendment to the original motion that we currently have on the floor by suggesting that we add the following to the commission action here, as suggested in the staff addendum, which was previously circulated. And that addition is that we note that the applicant has updated the project design to eliminate the stairs extending from the South Portico and modify the stairs at the southwest corner of the project to include a switchback. And that the staff supports the proposed project updates, particularly the removal of the South Portico stair, which will help reinforce the south elevation of the executive mansion as the primary facade. With that being my motion, I'd ask at this time for a second. Second. Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Is there any discussion on this item or questions on this item before we proceed to voting on this amendment to the EDR? This is obviously not the vote or deliberations on the project as a whole, but merely on this amendment to the EDR. Seeing no questions or comments, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the amendment motion in second and take the vote by roll call?

Yes, the amendment motion was made by Chairman Scharf and seconded by Vice Chairman Levenbach. Commissioner Solicis? Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Blair?

Yes.

Administrator Forst?

Yes.

Commissioner Dixon? Yes. Chairman Mendelson? Yes. Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Giacchetti? Commissioner Giacchetti?

Yes.

Sorry.

Thank you. The amended motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. With that, I'll now open it up to the Commission for discussion on the amended motion to approve preliminary and final site and building plans for the East Wing Modernization Project with the language we just added incorporated into the EDR. I'd actually like to start discussion today. And I'd like to start off just by reading some relevant press clippings. First, from the Washington Post, this attempt to modernize the White House has destroyed its historic value. Second, from the New York Times, a sacrifice of history for convenience. Also from the Times, extravagance for a public building. And lastly, from the Telegraph, a prioritization of grandeur over the needs of ordinary citizens. Now, none of these quotes relate to the ballroom project now before us. The first of these was about Teddy Roosevelt's construction of the West Wing. The second was about the Nixon-era construction of the Press Room in the West Colonnade. The third was actually about Chester A. Arthur's 1880s renovations of the Executive Mansion. And the fourth was about Andrew Jackson's construction of the North Portico to the Executive Mansion in 1830. Criticism in skies falling pronouncements from so-called historic preservationists and their allies in the press are therefore nothing new to the history of the White House. While some might wish for history in the world to stand still, the fact of the matter is that the White House complex has constantly evolved to meet the programmatic needs of the federal government and the office of the president which it houses. And it is in that context in which I believe we must now review the ballroom project that is before this commission. I believe that in time, this ballroom will be considered every bit as much of a national treasure as the other key components of the White House. And I believe that in time, the nation and successive presidents of both parties and all political stripes long into the future will be grateful to President Trump for having initiated and brought this project into being. I'd like to speak to our process on this particular project. As chairman of this commission, which has a lineage in history dating back over a century, I feel very strongly about the fact that the work that we do is important. And I feel that we've been unfairly slighted in the press and otherwise for the way we've gone about reviewing this particular project. The NCPC has a professional staff that I've come to know and recognize as doing consistently exceptional work, as they and we as a commission go about our job of protecting and preserving the aspects of the Capital Region that make it a particular public treasure for our great nation. And the notion that we have been less than thorough, that we have not met our obligations, is frankly insulting to the work that our team has done on this project and by implication on so many others as well. So let me lay out that process now. We began formal consultations with the White House's project team in December. I was at one of those first meetings where we discussed project goals, project timelines, and where the core interests of this commission were advocated for quite vigorously. Our staff engaged with the project team, as we do on so many projects, and the overall project now before us began to take shape. In January, three months ago, the White House team, represented by Office of Administration Director Josh Fisher and lead architect Shalom Baranis, gave an extensive public presentation on the project and what they were looking to build and achieve. We gave substantial feedback. Members of this Commission had the opportunity to express the concerns and qualms that some of them had, and I would note that many members of this Commission were also fulsome with their praise for the project's goals and ultimate objective. I thought Shalom Baranis was quite compelling in addressing the concerns that were raised and addressing questions about the design choices made and the nature of the project at issue. After the January meeting, we set out to devise a schedule that would allow for a full and fair review of the ballroom project. I was guided in setting out that schedule by the professional staff at the NCPC, who obviously have a lot of experience in these matters, as well as by my fellow members of the executive committee of this commission, Vice Chairman Stuart Levenbach and Commissioner Arrington Dixon. As our longest serving member, I leaned on Commissioner Dixon in particular for his views on what was appropriate, and we as a team ended up deferring to our staff's recommended review timeline, balancing the need and our desire for a comprehensive public comment period with our reciprocal desire to not unnecessarily hold up a priority project for our partners at the White House. Last month at our March meeting, the White House team presented again. We saw in many respects that our feedback had been heard and had an impact. The removal of the south pediment of the proposed ballroom was, for example, in my view, a great improvement on the original design that we had seen, reducing the massing of the proposed ballroom significantly and improving the coherence of the architecture of the new project with the executive mansion itself. The White House team was also very responsive to our stated concerns by showing, for example, that taking into account plantings in the tree line from the south, that the core public view of the iconic south facade of the executive mansion, the portico, the Truman balcony, etc., would remain largely unchanged and undiminished from crucial vantage points, and that the prominence of the north portico of the executive mansion was being preserved as well to the extent possible. And prior to this meeting, amended plans shown to us by the White House, in which we've now incorporated into the motion before us, further reflect the public comments and our feedback. The South's ceremonial and largely non-functional staircase has been removed, reducing the footprint of the ballroom significantly and markedly improving sight lines. I would also note that since December, our commission staff has consistently emphasized to the White House team the need for an improved public pedestrian experience when visiting the area in and around the White House. It appears that those concerns have also been heard, as we now have plans submitted to us, which we will hear more about later today, for a new visitor's entrance to the White House. Since 1994, in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, the White House has steadily become, because of very real security concerns, more and more walled off from the general public by an expanding complex of unsightly security barriers and fencing. With the White House's Visitor Center submission, we are seeing the most significant, concerted, real efforts to restore public view sheds and improve the pedestrian experience around the White House in three decades. And I like to think that the NCPC has been part of the impetus for action on that front. After the formal presentations in March, commissioners had the opportunity to ask questions and comment, and we then heard public testimony for many hours. I want to emphasize that everyone who wanted to be heard on this project was heard. We did not require in-person testimony, as we could have. We heard from folks all over the country, and even a presentation from a couple of well-meaning, if rather misguided, engineers from Venezuela who proposed a massive geodesic freedom dome on the South Lawn, which, for the record, I do not support. I commend so many members of this commission for sitting through the many hours of testimony and thoughtfully considering the testimony that we heard. I want to note that we would have been within our rights as a commission to immediately vote on the ballroom at that point. Indeed, we had a seconded motion on the floor at that time. Instead, we held that motion over to give us more time to properly consider the matter before us in light of the testimony and the materials that we had before us. I have now personally read every single comment submitted to this commission. That has not been a simple or a quick task, but as chairman, I thought it was my duty. I heard every minute of public testimony on this project. I've reviewed our staff's recommendations, and I've reviewed the project materials submitted to us at great length. I should note that many of the negative comments that were submitted to us during this process were frankly unresponsive. They dealt with issues beyond the scope of this commission. The private funding of the ballroom, for instance, or interior decorations, or the demolition process, or were simply opinions on the president himself. Considering issues of this sort is not within our mandate. We are not some sort of free-ranging ballroom justice commission. A great many of the negative comments we received were also copies or variations on a number of what I found to be unhelpful form letters circulated by groups that opposed the ballroom. While I always commend members of the public for engaging with civic processes, I would have preferred to hear unvarnished views as opposed to picked over uninformed language repeated hundreds or thousands of times. I took much more seriously the number of serious architectural critiques that we received. Some were from noted architects, others from simply interested members of the public who took the time to send us their thoughts and comments. And to those members of the public, I thank you, and I want to assure you that I considered your views before coming to my decision today. Today, I will be voting in favor of this project, and I want to explain why. In doing so, I hope my fellow commissioners will indulge me, I think it would be instructive to discuss the actual architectural history of the White House and the White House complex in order to properly contextualize the project that we have before us. And in doing so, I believe that I will address many of the public and architectural concerns that we've received during this process. In 1792, President George Washington and then Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson launched a design competition to design what was then called the President's House. The submission that won out was that of James Hoban. It was inspired, many say, by Leinster House in Dublin, one of the greatest examples of 18th century Georgian architecture in Ireland, with Palladian elements particularly prominent. Design and construction did not end with Hoban, though, by a very long shot. And indeed, if you look at the White House today, it bears very little resemblance to the original Hoban design. Jefferson, who had criticized the White House previously as big enough for, quote, two emperors, one pope, and the grand llama in the bargain, on taking office actually quickly saw a need for expansion. He added colonnades to house various service spaces that would otherwise have been in outbuildings, significantly expanding the original footprint of the White House. Shortly thereafter, of course, the building was substantially burned to the ground by the British during the War of 1812, for which I've still not forgiven them, requiring total reconstruction. And the building that was rebuilt thereafter quickly departed from the relatively simple original Hoban design. James Monroe added the South Portico. Andrew Jackson, very controversially, as I alluded to before, added the North Portico in 1830. These two imposing classical design elements were roundly criticized for their cost and extravagance in their day, but are now perhaps the defining architectural features of the White House. Sprouting up next to the White House, of course, a short while later, was the imposing edifice of the Treasury Building. Growing from a relatively small classical structure begun in 1836 to the massive four wings that it encompasses today by 1869, the Treasury grew to dwarf in footprint and massing the White House that it sat beside. During the same time period, the continued viability of the White House as the presidential residence and seat of government was repeatedly called into question for many reasons, but including the fact that it just simply wasn't big enough. Both before and after the Civil War, there were numerous proposals to move or to substantially rebuild the White House, but none of these were pursued. What occurred instead was simply sprawl. The complex started growing in a largely disorganized and ad hoc fashion. On the west side of the White House, for instance, connected to the West Colonnade, massive greenhouses and conservatories grew and grew and grew. Until indeed several decades later by the turn of the 20th century, their footprint rivaled the executive mansion, dwarfing any comparable structures on the east side of the building short of the treasury, and were considered a vital and historic part of the White House complex. Indeed, as a side point, Those who speak today about the historical symmetry of the White House as it relates to the ballroom proposal are essentially speaking about a fictional history of the building, not present since the very earliest days of our republic. The White House complex as a whole has never been symmetrical since perhaps the 1830s, if even then. And then whether it was the burgeoning Treasury Department to one side or the greenhouse facilities on the other, the White House complex in its first century grew in fits and spurts, and it has continued to do so until the present day. Beginning in 1871, rising just to the west of the conservatories and greenhouses, was a new massive addition to the complex. The State War and Navy Building, now called the EEOB, dwarfs the White House, overtopping and literally overshadowing it. With little in the way of architectural coherence with the White House and Treasury, its Second Empire styling and design was roundly criticized. Mark Twain called it the ugliest building in America. Henry Adams called it an architectural insane asylum. Franklin Delano Roosevelt considered a near total redesign of its facade, as it was still reviled as an architectural atrocity in his time. Today, of course, views differ significantly, and most consider it to be quite beautiful, if somewhat discordant with the White House. By 1892, the White House complex was such a mess and so clearly underbuilt, given the demands of the presidency at that time, that Benjamin Harrison and his formidable wife Caroline proposed a total redesign of the complex, adding diagonal connectors on the east and west of the executive mansion, connecting the two massive halls on either side. equal in size to the executive mansion that could contain office space, entertaining space, galleries for art and historical artifacts. This plan was never implemented, but it shows that certainly by 1892, the same arguments being made for the ballroom, the same needs being identified, were an issue for the presidency. Proceeding into the 20th century, we get Teddy Roosevelt, who demolished the half-century-old greenhouses and conservatories, drawing intense public ire in doing so, and threw up office space to the west of the West Colonnade, forming what is today the West Wing, or at least the roots of the West Wing. Roosevelt also built a small East Wing to serve as an entrance and cloakroom, which was later largely demolished in the 1940s before being rebuilt. The West Wing grew under Hoover, burned down, was rebuilt, and then FDR effectively tripled its size, adding two floors and what is now the Oval and Cabinet Suite to the south of the West Wing. FDR also added a swimming pool under the West Colonnade. Truman tore the entire White House interior down to its studs, substantially rebuilding it, and for good measure added the Truman balcony to the south facade, for which he was, of course, roundly condemned. Kennedy added the Situation Room complex, a large addition to the south of the West Wing. Nixon put a press room in where the swimming pool was, again drawing public condemnation. I could go on and on and on. My core point is that the White House is ever-changing, ever-evolving to meet the programmatic needs of an ever-changing and evolving United States presidency. And any argument that relies on the idea that the White House is unchangeable or should be unchangeable flies in the face of the very history of the structure such critics claim they are trying to protect. And so we arrive at the latest project to be proposed as an addition to the White House, the ballroom to be built on the site of the Old East Wing. Since at least the Harrison administration, and you could make the argument since the days of Andrew Jackson, there has been a recognized need for a large entertaining and event space on the White House complex. Modern presidents have accommodated this programmatic need for large events by erecting unsightly tents on the oft swampy land of the South Lawn. Nobody can argue that this is a good idea or that it befits the presidency of the greatest and most powerful country that has ever existed in history. We've been told by the White House project team and by architect Shalom Baranis that they're looking to build a ballroom that can seat 1,000 while also accommodating the needs of the presidency, security, ingress, egress, room for various ceremonies, etc., We typically defer to applicants when they define their programmatic needs. That's as true for this project as it is for a parking garage or a cellular tower or any number of other projects that regularly come before this commission. But I will note that the Washington Hilton seats over twice as many in its ballroom. 1,000 is not an unreasonable number programmatically and not an unreasonable amount of space, especially given that presumably many events to be held there might have fewer people but require space for entertainment, a dais for speeches, room for displays, and require substantial space for visiting dignitaries. The proposed ceiling is high, but I would think that a ballroom for the President, and indeed for the United States, for the most important civic events in our country, befits a high ceiling. Some of the architectural critiques we received have focused on the kitchen, which is currently to be at ground level. Some have suggested that if the kitchen were moved underground, the entire height of the structure could be reduced significantly. We've also been told, however, by the project team that subterranean construction is simply not possible owing to other programmatic needs below grade. And I want to speak very carefully here. The president has spoken publicly to an extent about what is being built below the ballroom. And for obvious reasons, I will not go further than he has on the subject. But I will note that there are sealed entries on the docket of the court case brought against the ballroom project by the National Trust. And I think it is therefore safe for the public and for this commission to assume that these subterranean programmatic needs are serious and unmovable, and as noted in public docket entries related to national security. It is, of course, also public record that FDR built an emergency bunker beneath the old East Wing, for which he was actually criticized at the time. Other critiques that we have received have emphasized personal animus towards President Trump, that he is simply building a ballroom for his own use. I will note, though, that even if the current construction timeline holds as I expect it will, President Trump will get very limited use of this structure before the end of his term, and that the real beneficiaries will be future presidents of all political stripes and dispositions and their administrations, as well as, of course, the American people. The ballroom, as proposed while large, fits neatly into the White House complex, nestled as it is between the Executive Mansion and the much larger Treasury Building. It does not overtop and overshadow the Executive Mansion, as does the Eisenhower Building, and its neoclassical architecture matches and complements the neoclassical elements of the Executive Mansion in contrast, again, to the Eisenhower Building with its Second Empire features. I've spoken at length about the history of the White House today. I've done so because perhaps the only constant in the history of the White House is that practically every change, every modification, every addition, and indeed every feature that we now celebrate as an iconic aspect of the White House was roundly and viciously condemned in its day. The critiques of the ballroom today are therefore oddly familiar to those of us who have studied the White House and its surroundings. Just as the North and South Porticos, the West Wing, the Truman Balcony, and every other aspect of the White House are now celebrated, I believe, too, in time, the ballroom will be celebrated as a crucial and contributing aspect of the White House complex. And as I said previously, I intend to support it today. Commissioner Blair.

Thank you, Chairman.

Well, how can I follow that? Now I have a good history of the White House. I would just say, obviously, I think the team has worked very hard to make this a good and beautiful structure. I agree that the president will get very limited use. I think it's worth noting that the architect of this structure, who I think is here with us today, is a renowned architect that has contributed a lot to the city and region and has won countless awards for his work. I think his firm has won. received 250 or so awards over its four decades based on my research. And he can correct me if I'm wrong, it's probably more, including some of the most prestigious awards in architecture. He was one of the youngest fellows of the American Institute of Architects ever admitted, which is a standout of his record. And I won't go through all of the buildings in the area that they have participated in. But all of the top level awards you can win in architecture, pretty much he's won and his firm has won. And I think to treat this project as different or somehow not from the same lineage of art and artistic design, simply because there are some people who I think for clearly political reasons don't like the project is a shame. And I think it is an unfair besmirching of the architect. Further, the president, who obviously has had a hand in this design, is a builder himself. And he, too, has won numerous architecture designs and architecture awards for buildings he has built over the years, as well as hospitality awards and many others. So I think that's worth noting because the purpose of the ballroom really blends the two things. It blends great architecture with great hospitality, which is something the president cares deeply about because it represents architecture. The American people. That's what the White House does. It's not his house. He is the current occupant, but it is the American people's house and he feels that way. And as I've said in my comments previously, the goal of this is to be able to give the American people or visitors that the king of England will be here at the end of the month. And we will likely dine in tents. When the president was recently in the United Kingdom, they dined in Windsor Castle. It's a little bit different. And, you know, we would say that it is not fitting of the presidency or the White House to have to invite the king of our oldest ally and perhaps most loyal ally to come and eat in tents on the White House lawn. They deserve a better experience. I think that. The public comment was well heard, despite the obvious campaigns that were, I would say, unserious in their critiques of the architecture of the project itself and more political in nature. I think all of the real feedback has been well considered. I think that perhaps we'll hear some differences today, but I think it's been well considered. I think it's clear that the team that has been on this project cares about what this commission thinks and has worked hard with it as well as any project that has happened certainly during my time here as any other team has. And so with that, I think we should all support this project. I will certainly be supporting this project and I will yield further comment.

Thank you, Commissioner Blair. Administrator Forrest. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and our fellow commissioners. I think this project is absolutely appropriate and logical. We're all familiar with our president's constitutional roles, but our president is also the convener and chief of the United States and the most powerful in the world. Would we have done more with appropriately sized and framework space over the decades and centuries? I surely believe so. Until now, we've convened as we can, probably not convened as we should. That's world leaders, business leaders, athletic, scientific, technical. We've retained a notable, federally accomplished architect. We've sourced the capital 100% from private pay. The attention to detail, I think, seems exquisite. And we talk about an accelerated process. We all know things take as long as we let them. 97 days ago, when I was sworn in as the administrator of GSA, we launched Project 410. It's our North Star. It took 410 days to build the entirety of the Empire State Building. Things do take as long as we let them. I have every confidence this is going to be magnificent. We're going to wonder why we didn't do it earlier. So, Mr. Chairman, I'll also be supporting this with a firm yes. Thank you, Administrator Forrest. Commissioner Dixon.

Mr. Chairman, I have no comments at this time.

I'll pass. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Mendelsohn.

Thank you. So I'm going to start with a question, which I think is to Mr. Acosta. I received a note earlier today that some of the president's statements and renderings regarding the ballroom are not consistent with what we have before us today. I don't know if that's correct. Do you know? And is what we're voting on, is that what is binding or what the president has been speaking or describing?

Sure, so I can answer that, Chairman Mendelson. The motion that the chairman gave at the beginning regarding the addendum to the EDR that was circulated to commissioners and posted on our website yesterday incorporates the updated design that had been shared and that we received the information on that from the project architect and applicant team. And so what is with the amended motion, assuming the motion passes the commission today, it would be the updated plans that have been circulated that the commission has approved it.

regardless of public statements, that might be somewhat different. The public statements by the president.

What is before the commission to be approved is the updated plans that were shared.

Okay. That includes the removal of the southern staircase, which you previously criticized, sir, and the addition of the southwest switchbacks there.

Yes. No, I understand. I looked at it. I just wanted to understand clearly what the commission has before it. So I have a number of comments. I'm going to see if I can have these somewhat organized. The issue to me is not whether there should be a ballroom. And I think a lot of the comments here have been about whether there should be a ballroom. I don't think that's it. It's the design. And I don't think the issue is that, well, other other changes to the White House have been criticized and therefore the critiques here are not justified. I'm sure there have been a lot of other proposals for the White House that were in fact not adopted. What we have before us is this proposal and whether this proposal is acceptable or the best it can be. I have previously spoken to the issue of time and consideration. I recognize that spending two years on a fence is an awful long time. And it does seem to me that it could happen more quickly. I'm looking at Administrative Force. On the other hand, what we've had this for maybe three months, our first discussion, I believe was at the January meeting. And I think there's a lot of value to the iterative process. And we've not had that. I'm reminded of some testimony that was submitted. I'm going to paraphrase it. We 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, we can do both. Doing both, however, requires time and that we move deliberately, that we engage seriously with ideas offered by the tens of thousands of architects, planners, scholars, and patriotic citizens who've submitted comments. It is possible to build a 1,000-person ballroom that, unlike the plan currently under review, truly honors the iconic status, the primacy, and the historic significance of the people's house. Comments submitted show how this could be done. The resulting ballroom would be smaller and it would 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 original architectural style. And by retaining the historic access along Pennsylvania Avenue between the Capitol and the White House, it would preserve the material representation of the symbolic connection between the legislative and executive branches in a nation committed to representative government and public accountability. This consultative process exists for a reason. To borrow words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch, words that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch used to describe our legislative process, it enables us to tap the combined wisdom of many, not just that of a rushed process. So I had brought up, I think it was at the January or February meeting, concern about the demolition. It was pointed out that the NCPC's general counsel has said the NCPC does not have jurisdiction over reviewing demolition. I'm not going to argue that. But the fact that it was demolished atypically before plans were presented means that the The iterative process was more fixed. I look at the EDR. I don't see any analysis of the square footage needs. I don't see any analysis of why the structure can't be lowered. We're told for security reasons. Perhaps that's correct, but there's just no analysis. I think that we can have a ballroom. To me, that's not the issue. And I would also just note, parenthetically, that I think much of the criticism is because of who is the president. I don't think that's what's before. I'll say that is not what is before us. But I do think that the height of the ballroom, when I asked that of the architect at the last meeting, I didn't get a persuasive answer that the height needed to be 40 feet. It could be 39, 38, 37, 36 feet. I didn't see the analysis of that. And to me, that's what is the issue here, is that this addition is, when I look at what was circulated yesterday, the addendum, I mean, it's just... I'm trying to be nice here. It's just too large. It's just too large. And if we can get the same program, but not as tall, not competing in height with the main structure and a condensed footprint, we are better for that. I think of the visitor center at the Capitol. That's a huge addition. And when you stand on East Capitol Street and you look west at the Capitol, it's to me quite remarkable, the vista, the view of the Capitol, because all that was fit. That huge program, a lot of rooms, a lot of conference rooms, a lot of committee rooms, a lot, a lot, a lot of stuff. And it was done. And we've not, because this has been such a rushed process, we have not had the benefit of that iterative work. I will note the EDR talks about how, well, some of the impact of the scale and height will be mitigated by landscaping. That may be true, but to me, that's not the solution. It just isn't. Landscaping is important. Trees die. Last I checked, trees can be, or plantings can be moved around. To me, landscaping is great, but that is not a solution. I will add as well that I am concerned that there have been comments at our proceedings and in the public about other changes. And I've said this, I think I said this at our last meeting, I don't think we should be looking at the White House piecemeal. Today, it's the ballroom. Tomorrow, it could be there's some modifications to, I guess, it's the colony between the main building and the West Wing. The day after that, it could be some addition to the West Wing. We should be looking at all of this at one time and not piecemeal. So that is a concern of mine as well. I think that the fact that this addendum to the EDR exists speaks to the value of the iterative process, that there have been changes made. I don't think there are enough. I think that if we had more time, and I... I can't help but wonder, but that the court action, the injunction, even though it's been stayed, would give us more time that we would be able to see even better improvements that still protect the program. That's not the issue for me, but have a addition that is more compatible.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Mendelson. Commissioner Henderson.

I have no comments at this time.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Giacchetti.

I have no comments at this time either. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart. We don't have Commissioner Cozart with us. Apologies. Commissioner Solis.

Thank you. With the thorough work the NCPC staff has done and the improvements to the project I see today, And the important element that you've made, Mr. Chairman, that the complex has to evolve. It has to evolve to meet the functioning of the administration in the White House. It's very important that it's able to do that and meet the mission requirements of the president and his staff. I think that's critical, the time, too, to make sure that those things happen quickly. I think it will, as you point out also, will serve the leadership today and in the future. So with that, I support the project moving ahead. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Stidham.

Thank you, Chairman. With that, I have a statement on behalf of Secretary Brigham. I would like to read. So good afternoon. I am providing the following statement on behalf of the Secretary of Interior, Doug Brigham. regarding the Commission's final vote on the East Wing Modernization Project. The Secretary recognizes and appreciates the substantial public testimony received on this proposal. The record reflects a wide range of perspectives, including comments emphasizing historic preservation values and the symbolic importance of the White House grounds, concerns about scale, massing and visibility from key public viewpoints, concerns about impacts to the historic landscape composition and axial views, questions about process and transparency, and from some commenters support for improvements framed as strengthening national pride and the civic character of the Capitol. Today, the secretary is voting in support of the project. This vote reflects the secretary's judgment that the final design as presented for commission action advances an operational need for a permanent secure venue to support official state functions and other responsibilities of the administration while proceeding through the Commission's established review framework that considers design, site planning, and relationship to historic setting. As the project moves into implementation, the Secretary emphasizes the importance of continued coordination and execution consistent with the approved final design particularly the integrated relationship among architecture, landscape, lighting, access, and circulation, as well as site edge conditions so that the built outcome is coherent, durable, and appropriate to its national significant civic landscape.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo?

Thank you. I think I will make this simple.

I'd like to align myself with Bill. Commissioner Mendelson's comments, which I thought were thoughtful, on point, and raised issues that we should be concerned about before what may be a rush to approve something this significant. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach.

Well, thank you. First, I want to commend the chairman for the fascinating walk through history. And I think it's important because we work on public policy issues all the time and a lot of time to evaluate it based on the circumstances of the moment. And it's important here to evaluate this through the arc of history. And so I thought that was very important context for us. So I want to say a couple of things. One is that I appreciate the level of public interest in this proposal. The White House belongs to the American people and it's appropriate that changes to the grounds receive careful scrutiny and careful scrutiny from this commission. But before I turn to the proposal itself, I want to briefly just note the perspective that I bring to the discussion. So I started working in the executive office of the president in 2007 when I joined the White House Office of Management and Budget. So my office was in the new executive office building, which is across the street from the White House. I have now served in the executive office of the president for three presidencies. And so I have a lot of familiarity with that corner of town. And during those years, I've attended many events at the White House, holiday receptions, meetings. I've provided countless tours for friends and family. And most recently, I attended the Hanukkah reception. I discussed the crowding in my earlier remarks before this commission. And that brings me to the proposal before us. So our responsibility is to ensure that the White House campus can support the modern presidency while still respecting the history of the place. And it's clear from all my experiences at the White House that it is not suited to accommodate the large numbers of guests that are indoors. The building is extraordinary, but its ceremonial spaces were designed for a much smaller scale of events than the presidency hosts today. The gatherings are often held, as many people have discussed, under temporary structures, on the south lawn and those events require generators, staging infrastructure, catering operations, portable restroom facilities for the guests, and these installations must be assembled, secured, removed repeatedly, often with damage to the grounds. The presidency has a ballroom. The only question is whether we continue building it temporarily each time, or do we do it once properly? I listened carefully to the public's concerns about the size of the modernized East Wing, and I think the critics failed to account for two important aspects. So first, the White House complex sits atop an extensive network of underground infrastructure and secure facilities that support the operations of the presidency. And those constraints can significantly limit where new construction can realistically occur and shape both the placement and the ability to develop below grade. So portions of the West Wing were able to be constructed below grade. I believe it's some parts or even one story below grade. I appreciate the comment about the Capitol Visitor Center. Much of that's below grade. That type of excavation just is not capable, cannot be done in this particular location. Second, although the project is commonly referred to as a ballroom, it is actually a multipurpose facility. The building will include space for the Office of the First Lady, include a theater. Of course, it's got the food preparation and other necessary support for events. It also contains continuity of operations for the president that were recently highlighted. And so my reaction to the proposal is the same today as when it was originally briefed, is that this structure will vastly improve the utility of the White House compound. So I wanna talk just a moment about architecture. So Thomas Jefferson was not only a president, he was one of the most thoughtful architectural minds of the founding generation. And when he served as minister of France, he studied classical buildings and concluded that the architecture of public institutions should reflect the dignity of the Republic. So when the state of Virginia built its capital in Richmond, Jefferson rejected ordinary government designs of the time and instead modeled the structure after Masson Carre in Nîmes, which is a Roman temple that he admired. And his belief was simple. The institutions of a great republic should be housed in buildings that convey permanence, beauty, and civic confidence. And this is not an expansion for its own sake. It is a consolidation of functions that are already occurring, but inefficiently. And if we are going to add a building to the White House grounds, it should not simply solve a logistical problem. It should also be worthy of the setting. And this proposal does both. It addresses a real operational need while contributing a building that is dignified, harmonious with its surroundings, and worthy of the White House campus and the American people. And for those reasons, I support moving forward with it.

Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion in the second and then take the vote by roll call? Yes, Commissioner.

Yes, sir. I'd like to. Gotcha. Absolutely, sir. First, I would want to thank all the comments that were made. Particularly, I want to focus on my chairman, Mendelsohn's comments. I also am impressed with what you presented to us also, Mr. Chairman. You and I have had some dialogue about this issue for several weeks now. I, like you, have taken the time to look at and try to review all the comments, as many as I could at least, of the 39,000 we received. And clearly, they have a leaning. And your evaluation was valid. And I appreciate that evaluation of them. I also want to associate myself with the comments of my other colleagues here. Obviously, they were well-prepared. And the word should go back to President Trump that they represented him well. And they made very persuasive presentations, as would be expected. I've got three choices. I can vote no. I can vote yes. Or I may want to take another position, which I've been encouraged to do and thought about doing, is to basically pass at this time, rather than, as you and I discussed earlier, by a vote to maybe say, no, I told you that a long time ago and gave you a document to support it. which I'm holding in my hand now, which I will keep for reference later. At this point, I'd like to just suggest that I support a lot of the dialogue here, and we're going to move forward, I think. Whatever I do, it's going to go forward, and hopefully we will always tell people, to the victors go the spoils. So if we are, whoever's victorious in the future will be able to enjoy this building. And maybe some of us will be at the building enjoying it and looking back and say how it got to be what it is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner. Do any other commissioners wish to be heard at this time? Hearing and seeing none, at this point, Madam Secretary, could you please confirm the motion in a second and then take the vote by roll call?

Yes, the original motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and amended by Chairman Scharf. That motion, the original motion was seconded by Commissioner Schaffer and seconded as amended by Vice Chairman Levenbach. With that, Commissioner Solicis? Commissioner Stidham?

Yes.

Commissioner Argo? Present. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Blair?

Yes.

Administrator Forrest? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Present.

Chairman Mendelson?

No.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Decchetti?

Yes.

Thank you. The motion passes.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. With that, we'll move on to Agenda Item 8, which is the Consent Calendar. There is one item on this month's Consent Calendar. I see that our friends from the press don't want to stick around for the Arabian leopard exhibit. I'm very disappointed to see that, but understand obviously. The only consent calendar item for approval is to approve comments on the draft area development plan and transportation management plan updates for the Naval Support Facility Suitland. Are there any questions or discussions on the consent calendar item from commissioners? Hearing and seeing none, we have a motion on the floor to approve the consent calendar. Do we have a second?

Second.

With a motion and a second, is there any desire to discuss this item? Hearing and seeing none, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion in second and then take the vote by roll call?

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

Yes.

Commissioner Argo? Yes. Present. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Blair?

Yes.

Administrator Forrest?

Yes.

Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Chairman Mendelson? Yes. Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Jacchetti?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We have six items on our open session calendar for today. Agenda item 9A is a request to approve preliminary site and building plans for the new stadium at RFK campus. And I believe we have Laura Shipman who's going to be presenting for NCPC.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and Commissioners. The District of Columbia's RFK Stadium Project Management Office, in partnership with the Washington Commanders, has submitted preliminary plans for a proposed new stadium and surrounding site improvements on the RFK Stadium campus located in Washington, D.C. At the preliminary review stage, the commission is focused on whether the applicant addressed the comments made during concept review, general consistency with a comprehensive plan, and a range of building and site design topics, including view sheds, massing, landscape, circulation, and programming. As a reminder, the stadium site is in a prominent location positioned on axis with the US Capitol and East Capitol Street near the banks of the Anacostia River. We will begin with the stadium and site design. At concept review in February, the Commission was generally supportive of the conceptual design approach, providing several recommendations and requests for additional information to ensure the appropriateness of the design for the site. The applicant has been quite responsive to those comments. At our last review, the Commission requested an elevation and height comparison with the U.S. Capitol and Washington Monument. On this slide, the true height comparison is diagrammed on the top, with the height of the Capitol at 288 feet and the stadium dome reaching 195 feet. The elevation above sea level comparison is on the bottom, showing the significant elevation change between the Capitol building and proposed stadium. I will also note that the District Zoning Administrator made the final determination that the project conforms with the Height of Buildings Act. As requested by the commission, the applicant provided a rendering confirming the stadium roof form will maintain a view of the US Capitol building dome and Washington Monument beyond along the East Capitol Street axis from the Anacostia Hills. This is the previous west elevation from the February concept submission. And here is the current proposal. In particular, the columns and entry archway have been refined in the latest iteration. At concept review, the commission requested further information regarding the proposed column spacing and recommended refinements to the column design to reflect historical precedents. In reference to classical fluted columns, eight flutes are articulated at the base of each of the stadium's columns, blending into a solid roof support, symbolizing the eight wards of the district united into one. The proposed column spacing every 26 feet on center is required structurally to support the stadium roof. The preliminary submission responds to site design recommendations by the commission regarding formal design and landscape buffers. The Festival Plaza, West, and East Plazas have a balanced and nearly symmetrical design that integrates elements such as an allay of trees, grand stairways, and an elevated landscape podium to emphasize the axial relationships along the East Capitol Street view corridor and reference the formal landscapes of the monumental core. This aerial view of the stadium from the west overlooking the festival plaza illustrates the site design emphasis on reinforcing the east-west axis. Additionally, as recommended, the landscape design introduces wide planted areas to buffer from the adjacent high traffic roadways to enhance the experience of the vegetated plazas at the north, south, and east entries to the stadium. This is an aerial view showing the East Plaza and landscape buffering from adjacent roadways. The commission also requested the applicant provide information on related RFK Campus project components outside the site boundaries that will be implemented at the time of stadium opening so that the project could be evaluated as a whole. The parking garages shown on this overall axon will be developed independently from the stadium and will be separate submissions in the future. However, their general massing is shown in several of the following renderings of the stadium. The heights will be up to 110 feet. Also, the primary truck loading entry, a tunnel under the stadium grounds, is shown to the north of the stadium. Now I will walk through several of the requested views of the stadium from eye level. Here is a view of the approach from the east along the Whitney Young Memorial Bridge. A view from the northwest from the Kingman Park neighborhood. From the Anacostia River. From the Hill East neighborhood with the DC Armory in the foreground. and a view of the north entry to the stadium. The monumental scale of the stadium is appropriate for its location and use. However, on the north and south entries, the podium lowers to the ground, and the full and potentially imposing height of the colonnades can be experienced at these locations. Staff recommends the commission encourage the applicant to continue to refine the north and south entries, which open to the surrounding neighborhoods, to ensure they are inviting and appropriately scaled within the context of the monumental design. And now I will walk through the requested views of the pedestrian arrival experience on game day. This shows the route from the Metro through Festival Plaza, another through the North Pedestrian Tunnel, and west of the stadium near the podium shops. At concept review, the commission requested additional information on the proposed building program at street level and how these spaces will be designed to help activate the public realm. The applicant notes the building program may include a flagship retail team store, a museum, and food and beverage opportunities for year-round use. The open spaces around the stadium are also intended to be used outside of game days. This is a view of the festival plaza on a normal non-event day. and the West Plaza entry on a normal day, showing the shaded and vegetated ramps, seating, and stairs. The comprehensive planned visitors and commemoration element encourages projects to ensure accessibility to visitor attractions for all users, along with well-designed and coordinated signage and wayfinding tools. Staff recommends the Commission request the applicant provide the universally accessible circulation routes throughout the site, as well as the wayfinding and signage approach with the final submission. The applicant notes the stadium lighting will create a softly glowing lantern-like appearance with appropriately dim lighting to respect the hierarchy of memorials, monuments, and the Capitol Building. To confirm alignment with comprehensive plan policies, staff recommends the Commission request the applicant submit the proposed exterior lighting levels in comparison to the US Capitol Building and Washington Monument, and the type, locations, size, and design of planned stadium exterior graphics, such as significant signage, display screens, and projections. Perimeter security will include temporary crowd control elements, such as retractable bollards and fencing. Permanent vehicle barriers and pedestrian security barriers will also be integrated into the site. Staff recommends the Commission request additional location information and design details in the final submission for the permanent perimeter security elements, such as bollards and barriers. As the design is developed, the form and materials of the permanent perimeter security elements should complement the architectural and landscape character of the stadium grounds as guided by urban design element policy. The preliminary submission includes additional information regarding tree preservation and replacement. According to the applicant, most of the existing trees on site are in poor or declining condition, and these compromised trees will be removed with the exception of the allay of healthy trees west of the stadium in the Festival Plaza and north of the stadium along C Street Northeast. Two large elm trees, which are heritage trees, will be relocated within the Festival Plaza. the applicant plans to meet the district's project requirements regarding tree preservation and replacement, and to generally conform with the intent of policies in the Comprehensive Plan Federal Environment Element. As recommended by the Commission, the general planting palette includes species native to the region and selects species supportive of pollinators in accordance with policies in the federal environment element. Remaining site design information requested for final submission includes further details on planned stormwater management facilities that will be visible to the public and kiosks and pavilions proposed around the stadium grounds. And now we will focus on the additional information provided regarding circulation and parking. As noted in the last review, the existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure surrounding the stadium will be improved and expanded to encourage active modes. Public transportation improvements, either planned or currently being studied, include improved access to and capacity at the stadium armory metro rail station and enhanced bus service or bus rapid transit. The applicant notes that the site plan does not preclude a second metro rail station if provided by WMATA in the future, though the plan is not dependent on this second station to manage capacity. Transportation demand management measures are also being explored to encourage staggered arrivals and departures and the use of alternative modes of transportation. In terms of street network at stadium opening, the existing curvilinear high-speed roadway network is planned to be replaced with an urban grid of two-way streets shown in green. The aim is for roadways to have sidewalks with buffers and planter zones to improve pedestrian connectivity where feasible. A secondary network of streets shown in blue serves the parking garages and service parking lots to foster efficient ingress and egress. On game days, there will be special traffic operations. Closures around the Festival Plaza will allow for pedestrians to walk straight from the Metro into the stadium without crossing a roadway. Drivers will be routed to use high capacity links to nearby highways, and there will be barriers to cut through traffic into the neighborhoods. This slide shows the locations of the proposed garages mentioned earlier and surface parking, which are outside the stadium site under current commission review. Overall, there will be up to 8,000 parking spaces with 75% in garages and 25% in service lots on opening day. While these garages will be surrounded by development at full build-out, they will be highly visible in the early phases of the campus redevelopment project. Therefore, as part of any future parking garage submission, the applicant should evaluate alternative orientations for the G1 and G2 garages to reduce visual impacts of views to the stadium and from adjacent neighborhoods. lower garage heights, particularly for the G2 garage near the Kingman Park neighborhood, and or phasing of garage upper floors as surrounding surface lots are developed, and active uses lining the ground floors of the garages to improve the pedestrian experience and create opportunities for community-serving uses. This shows the proposed loading routes. As noted at the Commission meeting, loading and service areas often create a utilitarian side to buildings, which would be difficult to disguise in a prominent stadium that is viewed from all angles. The proposal aims to address this issue by locating the primary loading dock ingress and egress through a north tunnel under the stadium grounds, shown with a red arrow, avoiding service entry impacts to the design of the stadium building. However, to also prevent visual impacts of the loading entry on the experience of the stadium landscape, staff recommend screening the loading tunnel entry from pedestrian pathways and seating areas with vegetation. And finally, in terms of coordination, the applicant conducted additional community open houses last week and is continuing ongoing coordination with the federal stakeholders, including NPS and the D.C. National Guard Armory. As the stadium project is developed, staff supports the continuation of the district's robust outreach efforts and recommends further analysis and mitigation of potential event noise and nuisance impacts on surrounding neighborhoods. With that, staff recommends the commission approve preliminary plans for a proposed new stadium and surrounding site improvements on the RFK Memorial Stadium campus with the comments highlighted throughout my presentation and listed on the following slides. And that concludes my presentation. Members of the applicant team from the district, commanders, and design firm HKS are also available to respond to any questions from the commission. Thank you.

Thank you, Laura. Do members of the design team wish to be heard or are they just- They're just available to answer questions. Okay. In that case, do any commissioners have questions for Laura or for the applicant team at this time? Yes, ma'am.

Could you go back to, I think it's slide 33, and I think this is more for the applicant team, but you may also be able to answer this. So I gather from this slide, this is day one operation, right? The stadium is constructed, there's surface parking. Are these parking decks installed? Are they there on day one?

Yes, that's what is proposed here, but the applicant has additional information.

Executive, and I'm joined today by Mike Dry, HKS Architects. They're the design architect. He may need to come up to answer some of these questions. Those two garages will be there on day one.

So help me understand why we're not seeing the development of those with the stadium package, because they don't have independent utility. They would not be there if you were not building a stadium. And I think I had asked this before and recommended that when you came back, that the parking garages, some development of them be shut.

Yeah. Mike, are you able to respond to that? In terms of timing. Thank you.

Sure. As you may be aware, the master plan is occurring around the district currently. So those parking garages, we've looked at them from a sizing standpoint and where they generally need to go. We've studied them very closely in terms of how in and get out of the complex to be supportive of the overall master planning process. You know, we have not looked at the design of those. They're preparing an RFP for those to design the actual actual parking garages currently. One of the biggest things that we looked at is where to put them to de-conflict them with people, try to keep them away from people as much as possible. So that's the level that we've looked at it. You're really just the fluidity of getting cars in and out, keeping them away from people, minimizing conflicts, worked with DDOT on that development as much as we could.

I get the locating and I get the master plan, but this is really outside the master plan because the master plan is not going to be looking at the stadium, right? So I'm a bit concerned that you're moving forward. I'm not quibbling about the location, but it's part and parcel of the stadium. So we should be seeing it as a complex and understanding how those frame the complex because they do frame it in their locations. So it would be great if when you came back, you gave us a bit more information on those so that we could understand how they fit into the overall design of the stadium. Because looking at it from that 360 view, these two are in the way and they're part of that view and understanding how they affect that view and how their design coordinates with the stadium is really important in approval of the stadium. Thank you.

I would just echo what Commissioner Stidham said. I think particularly the G1 parking facility affects important view sheds. And I mean, the stadium looks beautiful right now. But as I've said previously at NCPC meetings, I have rarely if ever seen a beautiful parking facility. So I think understanding how that affects the overall project plan and what the stadium will actually look like to people once it's complete, I think it's really important. So thanks for raising that, Tammy.

Understood, Jamie.

Do we have any other questions either for Laura or for the project team at this time?

I have one. So everyone that I've shown the renderings to loves it. Even for Passover dinner last night, everybody liked it. But there was one question that came up I thought was interesting. So I want to go back to the parking again. So walk me through your thinking around the parking. And specifically, you have two surface lots right by a plaza. So I'm thinking that you had an opportunity to do different things with that space. You have this great plaza where people will be able to hang out. Why did you decide to put surface parking to the right of that?

Surface parking to the right?

To the right. You have two lots. You have two lots on the right side of that map. Walk me through it because you have public transport here. The roads are more running by G1 and G2. Tell me what you're thinking about that.

Yeah, ultimately, I believe the master plan envisions a very active pathway there so that as people are coming off of the metro, we expect somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 60 percent of patrons who visit the stadium to come from that direction. So the goal, I believe, of the master plan was to really enliven that direction by the festival plaza to have active retail, things of that nature from that direction forward. When we look at the cars and how they get into the site, really focusing on getting the cars, getting people into the parking deck, out of their cars as fast as they can and get them onto their feet so we're not deconflicting. That was the large kind of focus on the location.

The two surface lots you have right there, is that supporting retail and other things that we don't necessarily see? Two surface lots there.

There are other ways to get to this place.

You could have had something else there like expand the plaza or do something else with the space. Why did you put two surface lots there?

Is it possible for me to speak? Sorry, commission. My camera is not working, but this is Andy Van Horn, head of real estate for the commanders. Those two lots exist today. and they are being reused from previous RFK Stadium. We will replace those with a mixed-use development environment, including live entertainment, bars, restaurants, apartments, and hotels. So those are temporary, and having been historically there, we were reusing them, and then we replaced them with a very active entertainment district.

And so after those are redeveloped, the only real tailgating spot I'm just planning for myself for the future would be, would be to the Southwest. Is that correct?

It is envisioned that we will also build housing and hotels there, but we have heard very much from our fans and others that we should continue to find surface parking spaces for tailgating and other, you know, kind of traditional uses like that. So we are exploring that as well as the mixed use environment that will wrap the G1 garage. And I apologize for my camera not working.

No, thank you, regardless of the camera issue. Are there any other commissioners that have questions either for Laura or for the project team at this time?

Mr. Chairman?

Yes, sir.

I appreciate, as the defender of the Capitol here, the applicants coming back with the elevation views that we asked for previously. I think that slide was particularly helpful, and the additional column detail, I appreciate that. I think for future submissions, it would also be useful, at least for me, to see rendered views from probably the Lincoln Memorial and potentially Arlington Cemetery viewpoints. Just to take the stadium in context, it looks like it will probably be predominantly hidden by the Capitol building, but I'd like to see what that looks like a little more than my back of the envelope math. Understood.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Any other commissioners at this time? We have two individuals who have signed up to speak to members of the public. The first is Frazier Walton, who's representing the Kingman Park Civic Association. Is Mr. Walton with us?

Mr. Chairman, we don't have Mr. Walton at this point. If we could start with Mr. Flanagan, we'll see if Mr. Walton joins in time.

Neil Flanagan, who is speaking in a personal capacity. Mr. Flanagan, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready.

Thank you, Commissioner. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. All right. Commissioners, I encourage the Commission to approve the preliminary site and building plans for this project because of the important precedent it will set in regard to the height of Buildings Act of 1910. In particular, since the law's amendment in 2014, the zoning commission and the zoning administrator have adhered to a literal reading of subsection H of the law at the expense of architectural creativity. In endorsing the colloquial definition of the word dome proffered by the applicant, this commission will open the door to a new era of rooftop variety and hopefully precipitate the revision of this obsolete law. I asked the commissioners to refer to my written comments for significantly more in-depth and technical analysis than is possible in three minutes. But to summarize, if the zoning administrator's determination were challenged in court, I am skeptical that a judge would find their argument persuasive. The striking lightweight roof proposed is not a dome in a structural sense. It is instead a hyperbolic paraboloid or high par. As the applicant admits, a high par's mechanism is one of balancing loads is fundamentally different from a dome. In a nutshell, a dome is a way of spanning space by balancing compression loads against each other, and a highpar is a way of balancing tension loads against each other to cover a space. These lead to profoundly different geometries, as you can see in the renderings, particularly where the high point of the structure is located. Historically, the Zoning Commission and the Zoning Ministry have rejected colloquial interpretations of the word dome, and I particularly point to zoning case 08-13. The zoning administrator invokes Merriam-Webster's dictionary to permit a loose interpretation of the word dome, but a court may find this argument unpersuasive. The D.C. zoning regulations do refer all undefined words to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary for the purposes of zoning decisions. However, the question of conformance with the Hyde Act of 1910 is not a zoning question, and the delegation to the mayor is not through the same law as the zoning regulations are promulgated. The Commission and any courts may be asked to review its decision-making must instead consider whether the text of the law treats the word dome as a term of art within the architecture and engineering fields. Approval of this project, if it is not overturned in court, would dramatically widen the range of what is permitted to be constructed on the roofs of buildings, including structures shaped like human heads or large pyramids, both of which our definitions are provided for the words dome and spire. I think all of DC should welcome this change. And I believe this is a healthy endorsement of DC's autonomy in the face of increasing federal intervention. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Flanagan. Is Mr. Walton now with us?

No.

Do any members of the commission have any questions, I guess, then just for Mr. Flanagan? Looks like he may have already left us. Hearing none, that concludes public testimony for today. Thank you for being here, sir. As a fan of the Height of Buildings Act and its storied history, that was quite fascinating. With that, is there a motion to approve preliminary site and building plans for the new stadium at RFK campus? Hearing a motion, is there a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioners. I'll now open it up to the Commission for discussion, and I will start deliberations with Commissioner Cozart.

Good afternoon. Really appreciate, as always, the work of our staff around this project. It has continued to be a collaboration with the district and our federal partners. Really appreciate the movement forward and all the efforts of the Park Service as we've moved forward with our work. We've had some really good meetings related to the master plan. In the past couple of weeks, a lot of great comments about the integration of the surrounding campus with stadium and the plans for the stadium and associated uses. A lot of good progress and momentum moving forward. The one thing that I would say about the master plan is that the sets, the ideas behind boundaries, uh are ones for us to keep in mind really understanding that while parts of the campus are going to move forward more quickly than other parts um they are all related to one another and we've enjoyed a collaborative effort um as um uh director hanlon has shared uh with um the team in as we think about the master plan and moving forward. That collaborative effort certainly extends to the broader community as well, and also district agency partners. So just really pleased about the milestone and moving forward that we have today in front of us as a commission and Also appreciate the comments of fellow commissioners to refine this work and note that we're taking notes on any of the design ideas that come out of this that can influence the broader master plan for the entire campus.

Excuse me. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Solis.

Getting ready for the meeting. That was the first time I've seen it. The presentation was great. Really impressive. I hope it brings more wins to the committee.

A notion, I'm sure, that is echoed by all the members of this commission. Commissioner Stidham.

I truly second that.

I wished it for...

The hockey team and their improvements to their structure.

It's not seen fruition yet, but maybe.

Yes, maybe soon. So minus the parking structures and my comments there, I have to say you've taken a very thoughtful approach to the setting of the stadium. And you've thought about it more than just on game day, which I think in the city where open space is very lacking and in great need everywhere, that you are really considered how that landscape can be used outside of the game day. And I think that's important to this community. I think it's important to the community that uses the fields that will stay and everyone on that side of the city. So I commend you for thinking about it holistically in that manner. The design is exquisite. You have taken into effect the necessary height, the necessary scale, umbrage to the previous stadium while making it larger, which has been, I think, an idea since before the 1990s, frankly. A while. Yeah, it's a while, quite a while. So just, you know, you've done a great job. You know, please roll in those parking garages in a way that improves even more than you already have. And that's it.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Arga.

I don't have much to add beyond that other than being really impressed with where we are now and I'd like to align with my fellow Commissioner's comments for John. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach.

I've shown the renderings to so many people that I've been talking to, and every single person loves it. So to go from a project that did not have unanimity to one that does causes a little bit of whiplash. But with that said, I appreciate all the thought, and I know you've worked well with the staff, and so thank you for your efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Commissioner Blair.

I think I would just say that everyone's very excited about this project and I agree it's very well done and look forward to seeing it proceed to the next phase.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Administrator Forrest. Yeah, thank you very much. And I'm just so excited about the evolution of the project and how people are working together. I have to say I'll shout out Commissioner Stidham and others who asked about the parking and G1 and G2. I would just say, had we not asked some of those questions and might not have learned about some mixed use opportunities and what you're looking to do, it would just suggest in that fullness of transparency as you evolve the project that that's just volunteered and brought to our attention so we can share some of the thoughts and the excitement behind that as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Administrator.

Commissioner Dixon. First, I want to associate myself with the planning director's comments, but I would say that I'm excited. I'll be more excited if I get a chance to go into the stadium. I haven't been to one in about 30, 20 years in many stadiums. But that's another discussion. And I'm glad to see it coming forward. And hopefully those who do go will enjoy it, I think.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cash. I'm just going to reiterate all the great design work on the stadium itself, but I also really want to underscore the need to see these garages as part of the package. So, I mean, I see these stadium renderings and I'm loving them. And then all of a sudden we see the view from the East Capitol Bridge and you have that. I'm reminded of when we talked about Pennsylvania Avenue. It's this wide vista and we don't want anything obstructing anything. The view from the Capitol and you have like this gray box on the side that you just see there. And in the winter, it's going to be even more visible. Yeah. So I really think that we need to see what the box is going to look like. Remember that the height of buildings act is a limit, not a ceiling, and see what we can do to make those parking garages better. So I'll disagree. I think there are some garages, if you look, you can be creative enough. Anyone that's been to National Airport, if you have to have a garage that looks okay. let's hang a bunch of plants on the side of it and make it look like it's not just a big utilitarian mess. So I think that we have an opportunity here where we have a stadium that's really panning out to be beautiful when a lot of people didn't think we could do what we're doing there on the site. And let's see if we can make the garages maybe do the same because there is going to be a need for that. There's going to be a lot of people. We don't have a new metro station there. Let's do what we can with the garages and make it kind of a forethought instead of an afterthought because they're going to stay there and let's make them look good if we can since they're going to be there for the life of the project. So But again, thanks to the design team on the stadium itself. I think that things are moving along great. So thanks. Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Henderson.

Just echo the same comments about the garages, particularly G1 and have nothing else. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Giacchetti.

No comments other than to say I am supportive of the plans and I'm looking forward to this project moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. I prepared a 40-minute speech on the history of the RFK Stadium campus, but fearing for my chairmanship, I'll withhold that for now, although I'm happy to provide it offline. I think the thoughtfulness of this project is apparent to all of us. I share Commissioner Stidham's concerns with what parking facilities are going to look like on day one. At our last meeting, Commissioner Cash also made some insightful comments about particularly truck egress, what the service entrance is going to look like. We have what appears to be a pretty good solution to that problem based on the current renderings and design. And I look forward to seeing how that aspect of this develops as we move towards final approval. Overall, as I've said previously, I think stadiums and arena. Arenas hold a very important place in the urban landscape. I think that's been true historically. I think it's certainly true today. And I'm looking forward to seeing this stadium continue to come through to fruition. I like the colonnade a lot. I'd like to see more on the lighting plan, particularly on when the stadium both is in use and not in use. But other than that, I enthusiastically support bringing this through for preliminary approval today. And as always, I'd like to thank Laura, our team here at NCPC, and also the project team and HKS for their attention to this project. And that's really all I have to say. Are there any further comments or questions on this project?

Mr. Chairman, the witness who was not able to make it has just joined. If you are open to hearing from him.

I think we should do that. Mr. Walton, can you hear me? And to remind those watching, Frazier Walton. Yes, sir. Can you hear me? We can hear you, sir. My understanding is that you're representing the Kingman Park Civic Association, and we will give you five minutes to present your testimony. Please proceed whenever you're ready.

Yes, sir. Mr. Walton. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. My name is Fraser Walton, and I'm with the Kingman Park Civic Association, which is directly...

Yes, can you hear me? We can hear you, sir. Okay.

Correct. And can you still hear me? Okay. Yep. And I'm sorry, I've had a problem. I've been here since the beginning, but I'm sorry about that. But just to briefly... Yes, sir. Just to briefly... But I just wanted to say... that as a historic district, the neighborhood sits adjacent to the stadium. We've been here for the last 98 years and we are, we are

Yeah, he's got his YouTube up.

Sir, we can hear you loud and clear. I think you may have a YouTube video playing or you may be watching the commission and there may be a few seconds delay. If you just mute that and talk, I promise you we can hear exactly what you're saying. I hope that was the right advice.

Yeah, right. Okay, I'm trying to find out what the problem is here. But at any rate, just to quickly, I don't want to hold you up. We clearly oppose, we strongly supported the construction of the stadium. However, we oppose the construction of a parking garage. the construction of a parking garage. And we oppose them because of the proximity to the neighborhood. Years ago, we had the highest rate of cancer in the city. And that was due to the fact that of the parking at RFK stadium. And what we're suggesting is that we have an alternative. And the alternative would be that you not build these massive parking garages, multi-level garages, and that we focus on increasing the size of the Stadium Omri Metro site And we also suggest that we build a new stop, a new subway stop at Oklahoma and Bennings Road within the next five to seven years. We are very concerned. I've submitted our statement. And and we have thousands of children, schools nearby, the playground, the golf course, the traffic would be terrific along there with these gangs as they were for the last 60 years. So 295 and 395 and the Wilson Bridge would be overwhelmed with traffic. So for that reason, I'm sorry about the echo. But we will thank you for allowing us to speak. We will continue to participate in trying to fight the construction. We work with the Navy for many years, the US Navy. the U.S. government, the district government, and environmentalists like Earthjustice, many of the organizations, the Anacostia Watershed Society, to clean the Anacostia River. We just had a terrible problem with water. And so for that reason, I would ask you to think about it. And I appreciate the sincere interest each one of you all have shown in this garage problem, because it is truly a problem and it throws off the scale.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Walton. Do any commissioners present have any questions for Mr. Walton or further comments on this project? Hearing none, can the secretary please confirm the motion and the second?

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

Yes.

Commissioner Salicis? Yes. Commissioner Stidham?

Yes.

Commissioner Argo? Yes. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Blair?

Yes.

Administrator Forrest?

Yes.

Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Giacchetti?

Yes.

Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. We'll now move on to agenda item 9B, which is a request to approve comments on design concepts for the new plan for Pennsylvania Avenue. Pennsylvania Avenue is obviously one of the most important connectors within this city. It's bordered essentially on all sides by highly relevant historical structures, obviously core elements of our capital. I think it's very important, particularly as we move further into America 250, with all the events coming in the months and years ahead, that we have a plan in place to make Pennsylvania Avenue what it could be, which is truly one of the iconic roads, iconic streets in the entire United States. At the February meeting, we looked at this project, or I guess a previous iteration of this project. The project partners leadership are actively discussing a more efficient management structure that will oversee construction, long-term maintenance operation, and funding as well to address the needs of the avenue so that it will serve the American people hopefully well into the future. And with that, we have Karen Shearhold from our team to present with us today. Karen, would you like to proceed?

Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and Commissioners. The National Capital Planning Commission, on behalf of the Pennsylvania Avenue Project Partners, requests the Commission's comments on design concepts for a new plan for Pennsylvania Avenue. Commission public feedback this month will help refine the designs considered for future analysis. In February, as you mentioned, the Commission heard an information presentation on the project background. I'll start by recapping some of the key points. NCPC is leading the Pennsylvania Avenue Project Partnership, which I'll refer to as the Partners Partnership. That includes the six federal and local agencies shown here with the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts as an advisor. The partners are working together to prepare a new plan for Pennsylvania Avenue. The project area is shown in the solid red outline. It focuses on the corridor, a 1.2-mile segment of Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the U.S. Capitol, and the 40 acres of adjacent public space and major north-south connections between the National Mall and downtown. The avenue and its immediate area are a National Historic Site, home to many historically significant buildings, statues, memorials, parks, and landscape features. The new plan will have two components, each led by a consultant team. The focus of today's meeting is on the public space plan, which will provide a design framework and guidance for the corridor and three main public space areas and address infrastructure modernization. Today we'll share design concepts that will be further developed and included in the public space plan. Concurrent with the design work, the project team is working with partner agency leadership on implementation to identify an efficient management structure to address the immediate and long-term needs of the avenue. The new plan will also advance making the District of Columbia safe and beautiful by improving public space, security, and modernizing infrastructure. When complete, the new plan will replace an existing 1974 plan. It will include an executive summary and the four parts listed here. The project team plans to submit a detailed draft at preliminary review. First, I'll walk through the vision, aspirations, and the design approach. Pennsylvania Avenue was designed to be the physical and symbolic spine of the New Republic, a people's promenade connecting two branches of government, As a primary thoroughfare in the new capital city, it drew activity to the city center and connected the two rivers at the eastern and western borders. Over time, it became a ceremonial stage, an iconic setting for presidential inaugurations, national celebrations, First Amendment activities, and local events. While Pennsylvania Avenue extends west to Rock Creek and east across the Anacostia River, our work in this presentation focused on the segment between the White House and the Capitol. Building on its unique role in history, a new vision will revitalize the avenue as the nation's most prominent civic boulevard. With its framed view of the capital, classical architecture at Federal Triangle, and location in the Monumental Core, the avenue is a historic outdoor venue for spectacular events like the upcoming IndyCar 250 and the NFL Draft. This vision will also deliver a safe, beautiful, and revitalized street that the city and the nation can be proud of. In so many ways capital cities are recognized by the grand ceremonial spaces that represent their nations, the new Pennsylvania avenue will stand among the great on the same global stage, the great capital city boulevards in London Paris and Berlin. At the same time, the avenue will be a joyful and engaging space for downtown Washington with amenities and activities that serve visitors residents and workers. The new plan lays the foundation to design and implement these aspirations, addressing the corridor in three main public space areas shown here. Pennsylvania Avenue is where Americans unite, where we convene to act, live, and gather. The design concepts reflect key goals, objectives, and themes built upon technical analysis by subject matter experts, previous commission and public feedback, and ongoing conversations with the partner agencies. To set the stage for the design discussion, I'll quickly address the Commission's comments from the previous meeting about some of the Avenue's issues and opportunities. This slide shows numerous physical issues that the Avenue is facing today, including flooding, broken pavers, dying trees, and an aging modernist design. And underground is a complex mess of below-grade utilities and aging infrastructure, some dating back to the 1870s, that will need a comprehensive modernization. From the 1970s through the 90s, the Avenue had a single steward, the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, or PADC. Its dissolution in 1996 caused management and funding issues that the new plan needs to address. While not the focus of this meeting, the project team is working with partner agency leadership to identify a management structure as the design concepts develop. The federal triangle just south of the avenue will remain the symbolic core of the nation's capital, defined by its strong federal presidents and neoclassical headquarters. Redevelopment potential and value at nearby federal states, including the J. Edgar Hoover Building and the Francis Perkins Building, will help drive economic growth and bring vibrancy back downtown. I'll note that this work is progressing in coordination with local partner agencies, aligning with and finding synergies among complementary planning efforts. Because events are a critical part of the Avenue's current function and new vision, the project team is addressing ways design can improve efficiency and the cost effectiveness for events of all types and sizes. The team has been working with the Military District of Washington and the Mayor's Special Events Task Group to understand critical dimensions, for example, the inaugural parade that requires a set amount of clear path for the parade, spectators, and multiple levels of security. There is consistently overwhelming demand to host events on the National Mall, which is often over-programmed. The team is working with the National Park Service, and event producers to ensure the design accommodates the needs for First Amendment activities, festivals, and other special events to reduce that pressure. The Avenue is a venue envisions a plug-and-play experience for events, reducing time for setup, teardown, and minimizing disruption to the surrounding area. The design will address multiple operational and safety considerations, including water and utility access, permanent and temporary security, emergency and first aid stations, telecommunications infrastructure, stages, tents, trash removal, and more. The design concepts are tested as they evolve to ensure they can support and ideally improve critical event needs. So now we'll look at design. For this concept review, the design team prepared design concept alternatives and options. We'll think of an alternative as a big design move and an option as a detailed way to achieve that alternative. There is a lot more detail on the project materials on our website and in the Commission's packets, but for efficiency, this presentation will summarize and focus on the big design moves, which you can see in these sub-bullets, where input is most critical at this stage. The Commission's input and public comments will inform design development in the coming months. So let's start with the corridor between 3rd and 13th Streets NW. For the corridor, we're seeking input on three major design moves, reallocation of the roadway space, tree types, and flagpoles. Aspirations for the corridor include celebrating the viewshed and architectural character, beautifying the streetscape, providing pedestrian amenities, and upgrading security infrastructure. Today, the avenue has eight travel lanes and a center running bike lane. This slide shows the existing cross section that hasn't changed since the 1970s when it was designed as a primary crosstown thoroughfare. For context, this is equivalent to the width of some interstate highways. A transportation study found that the traffic volume has reduced since the 70s and it's now oversized for current demand. The corridor-based alternative reallocates the space to four travel lanes, one turn lane, and two curbside zones while shifting the center bike lane to the south side. Today's transportation needs are different than 50 years ago and need to account for rideshare pickup and drop-off, loading and deliveries, while safely accommodating multiple modes of transportation. Moving the bike lane to the south provides the additional advantage of increased security standoff for the Federal Triangle. Overall, this new configuration amounts to just one travel lane reduction. The second major design consideration for the corridor is street trees. Trees are an important and historic framing device that accentuate the view of the Capitol. There are two options, canopy trees shown on the left, and then the lay of columnar trees, which we sometimes call fist digit trees, to the right. Both options are laid out in a formal pattern next to the curb with additional canopy and understory trees near the building line. The main difference here is in the shape and character of the trees closest to the curb. And then the third consideration for the corridor is flagpoles that enhance the ceremonial role of the street. Functionally, other vertical infrastructure may be integrated to these poles for everyday and event use, such as permanent lighting or temporary speakers and video screens. And I'll make two quick notes that we are showing the poles at 60 feet tall. And for comparison, other flagpoles along and adjacent to the avenue range from 40 feet to 100 feet. and also want to note that they are not designed to accommodate telecommunications infrastructure. We understand that telecom is a critical utility, but adding it to these poles would compromise their function as a consistent design feature and could become quickly outdated. So the next few slides show the base corridor configuration with the different tree and pole options. This is showing the canopy trees without poles. The canopy trees are on one side of the pedestrian promenade. They provide shade and can accommodate a larger event zone in the street. But the main frame view is best experienced from the street as the trees may limit the visibility of the Capitol from the sidewalk. This shows the canopy trees with poles. The flag poles add a formal ceremonial element that helps define the canopy tree line and frame the Capitol Vista. This shows the columnar trees without poles. The layout of columnar trees, one tree on each side of the pedestrian promenade, provides a unique formal character and direct frame view of the Capitol. It offers less shade along the sidewalk, however, and may reduce the size of event zones. And this shows the columnar trees with the poles. The flag poles complement the upright character of the columnar trees and enhance the framed view from both the street and the sidewalk. Here are the big moves we hope to get feedback on all on one slide. The canopy is with or with poles on the left and the columnar trees with or without poles on the right. The design concepts will be continued to be developed in further detail with a recommendation for further study on if and how functions can be integrated into the polls, including understanding their structural needs and considering ways to avoid impacting the historic character, views and overall visual quality of the street. Next, we will look at the Western end, which is near the existing Freedom Plaza. With proximity to the White House and the Wilson Building, this location is often used for First Amendment activities and local events. There are two main design moves at the western end. The historic alignment alternative, which restores the historic diagonal roadway alignment, creating two smaller plazas on both sides. And the central plaza alternative keeps the shape of the plaza and roadway circulation as it is today, but brings it down to the street level. Issues at the western end include the plaza's elevation, lack of shade and amenities, and a poor relationship to the surrounding buildings. Aspirations for the western end include enhancing comfort while maximizing flexibility as an event space and improving traffic circulation and access. So we'll start with the historic alignment alternative, which proposes a new design for two street level plazas. The big move here restores the avenue's historic diagonal alignment as the primary vehicular route, shown in blue. Secondary circulation, shown with a blue hatch, provides access to adjacent buildings, and this option shows a shared street connection between the World War I Memorial and the White House Visitor Center, with driveway access to the Wilson Building. The diagonal roadway alignment creates two triangular public spaces shown in pink. Together, these two plazas add shade and amenities, enhance the symbolic view, and create a large flexible event space. There are different ways to connect the public spaces to the adjacent buildings, and this option shows a large plaza in front of the Wilson Building. The inaugural parade route shown in red will follow the diagonal roadway, which helps to reduce the number of 90-degree turns the parade must make.

The other alternative proposes a central street-level plaza.

The big move here generally maintains the current vehicular circulation as it is today, but around a new street-level plaza. Secondary circulation, shown in the blue hatch, provides access to adjacent buildings, and this option shows a shared street condition between the National Theater and the new plaza. The central plaza and connected public spaces, shown in pink, add shade and amenities, strategic tree placement and landscape frame the symbolic view, and accommodate a range of events. There are different ways to connect the public spaces with the adjacent buildings. This option shows how temporary closures could extend the plaza to the National Theater. And here, since the plaza is street level, the inaugural parade shown in red can still go diagonally through, again, helping to reduce the number of 90-degree turns the parade must make, just something we heard was beneficial from the Military District of Washington. Again, to summarize, these are the big moves for the western end that we hope to get feedback on. Aligning the main roadway diagonally through on the left or retaining a central plaza configuration on the right. Design options will continue to evolve and be presented in greater detail at preliminary review with a recommendation for further study to refine the functional and operational requirements for circulation, public spaces, and access to adjacent buildings. The next location we'll look at is Market Square. Market Square is one of the livelier areas along the avenue due to its access to transit, proximity to downtown and the National Mall, and a mix of commercial and residential uses. There's only one design alternative for this location. Despite being well used, it suffers from disconnected public spaces on either side of the street, gaps in retail, and empty ground floors, and it can be confusing to find ways to downtown, the National Mall, and other area attractions. The existing roadway alignment does not change. The options here address improvements to the public spaces and pedestrian areas shown in pink. The aspiration is to strengthen the avenue's core identity by celebrating key axes, enhancing connections to the National Mall and downtown, embracing its historical commercial character, and adding comfort amenities like trees and seating. Two options offer different ways to meet the aspirations. They both include a downtown gateway, formal and intimate garden spaces to improve Indiana Avenue, an enhanced pedestrian experience on 8th Street, and a covered marketplace and galleria off of Indiana Plaza. Design options will continue to evolve and be presented in greater detail at preliminary review, with a recommendation for further study to define and refine the functional and operational requirements of the public spaces, including their relationships to adjacent buildings, the broader public space network, and the transition between downtown and the National Mall. And finally, the last location is the eastern end at John Marshall Park. The eastern end is where most of the larger events on the avenue are staged, including an area that supports all of the back of house event supports. It steps from the Capitol grounds, the National Mall and the National Gallery of Art. There is only one design alternative for this location. Despite its size, John Marshall Park is highly underutilized and has minimal visibility with elevation changes that impact access. park is surrounded by a high concentration of daytime uses such as courthouses law enforcement and embassy buildings that don't generally enliven the space and have robust layers of security requirements oops there's a lag the existing roadway alignment does not change The options here address improvements to the public spaces and pedestrian areas shown in pink. Aspirations are to create a flexible event space that supports daily use, enhances comfort, preserves the 4th Street viewshed, and improves access and security. Three design options offer different ways to meet the aspirations. They all include designs that address the grade change, integrate amenities and event support infrastructure, use landscape to create shade and accommodate a range of event sizes, and enhance views along the four street axes. Again, design options will continue to evolve and be presented in greater detail at preliminary review with the recommendation to further study and define the functional operational requirements of the public space, relationship to adjacent buildings, broader public space network, and transition between downtown and the National Mall. As I mentioned, concurrent with concept development, the project team is working with partner agency leadership on implementation. The goal is to identify an efficient management structure that can address the immediate and long-term needs of the avenue. Recognizing that a project of this size complexity and ambition doesn't happen overnight, the design team is also thinking ahead to factor how construction can be phased over time so that the corridor public spaces and or smaller focused interventions could be implemented in phases in any combination or order as funding is available. Looking forward, we are looking forward to coming back to the Commission this fall for preliminary review and early next year for final review. As a reminder, our project deliverable is a new plan, which will include a schematic design that addresses both physical design and infrastructure modernization and provides guidance for detailed final design and construction documents in the next phase of work. I've highlighted the key comments and recommendations in the presentation, As a reminder, today's presentation focused on the big moves we hope to get feedback on and design concepts will be further refined and developed for preliminary review. And before I wrap up, I'd like to give an overview of our upcoming public engagement opportunities. have many opportunities for the public to take a closer look at the design concepts this month and provide input we're hosting two online public meetings on the 8th and the 22nd this is also an opportunity for the public to engage with the design team and we'll have questions and answers and we're also accepting comments submitted to our website through april 30th and starting next week there will be a pennsylvania avenue display at the national building museum showcasing a lot of the content that we walk through today. That will also be up until April 30th. So with that, thank you, Chairman Sharp and commissioners. That concludes my presentation. I will note that the NCPC team, David Rubin from David Rubin Lane Collective and Doug Davies and Lee Farmer from VHB from the design team are here to answer any questions.

Thank you, Karen. Do any commissioners have any questions at this time? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve comments on design concepts for the new plan for Pennsylvania Avenue?

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner. Is there a second? With that, I will now open it up to the Commission for discussion, and I'll start deliberations with Commissioner Stidham.

So it's hard to speak about this project because I've been working on it for so long. And to be, I have to say, to be at this point is fabulous. I think I've said for many years, we'll never get to this point. And here we are. So it's great to have some ideas, some big ideas, some big moves before us for consideration. So I don't think much of what I'm going to say is going to be a surprise to those who've been working on the project. You know, feedback on the big moves. I think for the corridor configuration, I think the canopy trees do the best job at framing the avenue and giving that sense of space while providing that pedestrian shade that everyone needs so badly. I'm not a fan of the poles. I get the mood that that makes and the symbology that brings. But I also am concerned with its introduction as an element on this very important avenue and what they may be used for in the future. Everyone sees a pole differently. So from the Park Service's perspective, that pole also can be lights. It can be a telecom feature. It can be something no one has even dreamed of yet. And I think it provides management and operational support challenges that we can't even think of today. And I think there may be other temporary ways to provide that same symbolic nature as a permanent pole was in a way that is more synthetic of this as a national historic site. So keeping that in mind. For the West End at Freedom Plaza, I love the historic alignment. I think it puts the White House Visitor Center and I think it puts the Wilson Building in a much better setting that is more suitable for those two structures. It's more pedestrian friendly. I think it's more welcoming. I think it does a better job of dealing with the traffic and events. So I think it provides a lot of opportunities that maybe the other option doesn't. MarketSquare, I don't think you can go wrong with either of those moves. John Marshall has to be one of my favorite spots. I call it like the secret garden. No one really knows it's there. And then when you come upon it, you're like, wow, nobody uses this space. This is a great space and we're doing great improvements to it now. So go there after May 1st and you will be just amazed at how beautiful it is with the new paving and the fountains. But beyond that, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the options. I think it pries to be an event space. I think it's deserving of that. I would look for ways to make it more adaptable. So no stairs, no walls or minimum amounts. to allow for that to be a very accessible space and usable for a variety of events and flexible, right? So they can handle whatever, be it a upcoming memorial, a great concert, barbecue, whatever. I think that it has great opportunities. So I think the, thank you again for the presentation. I think the staff and the consultant team is doing a great job. of bringing this all together and thinking about not just the big events, but also the day-to-day activities and how this sort of blends into the city and use daily and those big events. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo?

No additional comments. It's exciting. It's wonderful to see this development. Appreciate the work that's been done here. It'll be great to have also, let's see, some more opportunities for flexible event spaces, which I think we need. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach.

So I appreciate all the thought that went into it with the multiple options. Just to give you my thoughts initially, I'd like the canopy trees a little bit more. I wasn't sure about the polls. I hate those big planners, which you always have to walk around. And I just thought the polls are another thing that carves up some of the walkways and it's something else to walk into for clumsy people like me. Um, I liked the central Plaza quite a bit. I thought that was a nice option. I liked the neighborhood garden with the kind of sort of a soft lean. I thought the pavilion was interesting. I think how it, um, putting in the context of what other types of space there are in that area. And this one looks like it provides a little bit of structure for an event. I thought the building was interesting. So anyway, look forward to seeing how it develops.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman, Commissioner Blair. No comments offered. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner. Administrator Forrest.

Thank you very much. So 30 years since PADC was sunsetted. And I am just so energized by this presentation and the hard work that you guys put into it. I think it's awesome. I am trees over poles every day. So I'm with you on that. And I would just say Commissioner Stidham's comments are a mic drop for me. So thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner, or Administrator, excuse me, Commissioner Dixon.

I like this mic drop thing. I like this. I think that Commissioner Siddham is always a mic drop for me, I think. I would associate myself with her comments. I want to also make it clear that I was enjoying the presentation from the room next door where I could relax a little better. I do that sometime, move around. I also wanted to say that I had a long, great conversation with the consultants, the folks who are doing this, and then very moved by their capacity and sensitivity I think the work they're doing is exceptional, and I hope they can move forward with help. I do agree about the polls. I mean, it's something about them. If we have a string of them, it could be misused maybe in some ways, and I think that may be something you can look at. I don't know how you can replace that, but... Whatever. I also think that the Freedom Plaza concept of dividing that helps make that turn a less sharp turn for those marching forces. I marched in a lot of parades in many different ways. And I think that it makes it easier when you have a unit moving. So that's great. And the other places, other suggestions are good ones as well. I can only remember some time when I was a younger person. Here we go, Mr. Chairman. And I would go to parades. I had to stand. I used to climb up in the bushes at 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue. You could perch yourself on a bush and get perspective to see the parades. So I still don't have a place to go these days, but now we at least have some options that maybe I won't have to worry about bushes to be able to get up one as a kid.

Nowadays, if you tried to perch yourself on those bushes, the National Park Service will be on you in a second, sir. Yeah.

Absolutely. So anyway, I like what's going on. I appreciate the support, particularly impressed with the crew that's working on it and the staff's effort.

So thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cash. Nothing else to add. I associate myself with everyone else's comments and thanks for the ongoing work on this project. It's been a long time coming. Thank you, Commissioner.

Oh, sure. I'm sorry, just to jump back in. I know there's a request for, I think, $3.9 million to go ahead and take the next step. I just want to let you know we've approved that. Okay.

Sorry. Thank you, Administrator Forrest. Talk about mic drop, Mo. I wish I had millions of dollars to throw around on projects. Commissioner Henderson.

if the if there's a move to get away from the polls i i think losing the ability to display flags along the avenue would be a loss so i don't know how that would get replaced if it weren't for polls i'm sure there's other good ideas i would just still argue for the flag here and that's it thank you commissioner commissioner giacchetti did we lose commissioner giacchetti

we can come back to him. Commissioner Cozart.

Yes. I just want to say appreciation to the staff for this. Not only do they report on this, but it's also, they've put in a lot and a lot of work and a lot of leadership around this effort and that's greatly appreciated. And we're happy to be in partnership with them to really think about operationalizing this and, I associate myself with the comments of other commissioners and I just want to lift up the importance of Market Square as a way to really make the connection between the waterfront, which has had a lot of both federal and local investment to revitalize and making the way all the way up Seventh Street. Market Square is an important gateway into the downtown of the district. which we're working really hard to revitalize with sports and entertainment and other really important things. So that's a great stopover and really impressed with the evolution of the designs for there. Interested in seeing the continued evolution for the other parts of the avenue as well, because there's definitely some visual analysis and design challenges. Look forward to seeing how we square those up as the submission goes forward in the fall.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Solis. So as a new participant, I'm just really impressed with the presentation and the work that is done here. It's really impressive. As we get to the avenue, the National Avenue, I do think the canopy trees, having walked that many times, especially in the summer, it's nice to have that shade. So I think that's important. And I do think at some point how we can display flags is also a very important aspect of this. I'm a little surprised on the 90-degree turn thing from the military. Maybe we should just have Marines lead all the parades. They have no problem with 90-degree turns, I can tell you. They know how to march. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Is Commissioner Giacchetti back with us now?

No, I believe he stepped away.

He stepped away. I'll just say for myself, this is a really exciting project. Thank you for that in-depth presentation today. I'm agnostic on the trees and the poles, but I'm sure that whatever design we end up settling on will be beautiful. I think the bigger picture item, though, really reclaiming this space, to allow it to serve as a civic center, as a public gathering place in the heart of Washington, D.C., is incredibly important. I think one thing that none of the other commissioners have highlighted, moving the bike lanes from the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue to the south, I think it could be a tremendous improvement for a lot of different reasons. And just making sure that the streetscape reflects the actual needs of the people who currently use it, I think is very important as well. But thank you again to our team. I know how important a project this is to NCPC and to so many others. And I'm really excited to see this come back around as we move towards this project's ultimate conclusion, which as Commissioner Stidham said quite well, we've been working on this for a long time and it's exciting to see the progress that's already been made. With that, are there any further questions or comments? Hearing none, can the secretary please confirm the motion in second and then take the vote by roll call?

Yes, the motion was made by Commissioner Stidham and seconded by Commissioner Solicis. Commissioner Cozart? Yes. Commissioner Solicis? Yes. Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo? Yes. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Blair?

Yes.

Administrator Force?

Yes.

Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Thank you. The motion carries.

Thank you. The motion is passed. And with that, we move on to Agenda Item 9C, which is a request to approve comments on the George Washington Memorial Parkway Vista Management Plan. And we have Mike Weil with us to speak about that.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and members of the Commission. The National Park Service is developing a long-term management plan for 15 vistas along a 2.65-mile stretch of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, which is located in Arlington, Virginia. As part of the Park Service's ongoing environmental assessment study process, they are requesting concept comments from our commission here today as part of their scoping phase under NEPA, which is an opportunity for NCPC to comment early in the plan's development process. The project's 30-day scoping period began on March 12th and extends through April 11th. And as shown here on this timeline, based on scoping feedback, the Park Service will prepare draft EA and then return back to NCPC for review and comment this summer. This map shows the 2.65 mile section of the parkway where the future Vista management plan would apply, extending between Chain Bridge in the north and Spout Run in the south. And the planned segment is part of the larger 25-mile-long George Washington Memorial Parkway, which honors the nation's first president as a scenic roadway that protects the cultural and natural resources along the Potomac River. The parkway is part of a comprehensive system of parks, parkways, and recreational areas surrounding the nation's capital. This VISTA management planning effort was born out of a larger rehabilitation project for the northern portion of the parkway, which NPS initiated in 2022 to improve safety, drainage, and the user experience, while also preserving the parkway's historic character. And this rehabilitation project is now virtually complete. To prepare for this VISTA management plan, NPS previously conducted a visual resource inventory and assessment study to systematically identify VISTA locations along the parkway, as well as their type and quality. Of the five different VISTA ratings identified through the study, the VISTA Management Plan considers the VISTAs that are rated in the two highest category ratings. The superior class VISTAs with striking and dramatic views along the parkway, typically with man-made features in the distance. And then the high class VISTAs capture the scenic beauty of the Palisades and gorgeous area along the Potomac River. And we commend the National Park Service and our executive director's recommendation comments for developing their VISTA management plan based on this previous visual assessment study. As background, the GW Parkway is significant as it was the first comprehensively designed modern roadway built by the federal government and the project preserved extensive Potomac River shoreline habitat. Congress established the parkway on May 29th, 1930 with federal funding appropriated under the Capra-Crampton Act. The parkway protects the landscape along the Potomac River, offers scenic views of Washington, D.C. in the river, and also functions as an important transportation link between multiple historic sites, memorials, and scenic and recreational areas within the Washington metropolitan region. Previous VISTA clearing and restoration work was undertaken in 2024 with 10 of the 15 subject VISTA locations either partially or completely cleared along the parkway. This clearance work has been paused since then temporarily, so the Park Service can complete additional NEPA compliance work as part of the future long-term plan to manage these VISTA areas. The purpose of the plan is to manage these parkway vistas with recognition of the GW Parkway as a scenic, historically significant, and as part of our regional system of parks, parkways, and recreational areas. And we express our support for this purpose as part of our executive director's recommendation comments. So here are the plan's 15 subject VISTAs shown here in blue, which were established as part of the original parkway design. And we have several comprehensive plan policies that support their preservation as shown here. Based on the parkway's higher elevation above the river in the north, the superior class vistas are concentrated there with long views down the river, while the high class vistas capture the scenic beauty of the Potomac River in the south based on the parkway's lower elevation there and closer proximity to the river. Five of the subject vistas are southward facing shaded here in red. And these are meaningful since they allow parkway users to view elements of DC's charismatic skyline as they approach the city. And then the 10 northbound vistas shown here in blue are noteworthy in that they have fewer visual obstructions such as passing traffic based on the northbound lanes riverside position along the parkway. Most of the plan's views, 11 of 15, are classified as open with unobstructed wide panoramic views and without woody vegetation in the foreground. And then here are the two Vista Overlook locations identified in the plan with parking areas, acceleration and deceleration lanes so that people can stop and get out of their vehicles to enjoy the scenery. Currently, there are five different potential VISTA management concept alternatives, ranging from maximum VISTA preservation to full reforestation of these areas. And I will now briefly walk you through each of the potential management alternatives. The first alternative is the NEPA required, no action baseline alternative. And in this scenario, the Park Service would allow the natural reforestation of all 15 VISTA areas, which would result in a continuous natural forested landscape between the parkway and river. Alternative two would restore and maintain all 15 VISTAs consisting of both superior and high class VISTA categories, which are important elements to the parkway's original design. Under alternative three, the Park Service would maintain nine of the 15 VISTA locations with all seven of the superior class VISTAs, plus one additional overlook VISTA location, which is rated high class And then one other high class Vista location number eight, which overlaps with location number 29, which is one of the superior class Vistas. And so clearing one Vista location would also simultaneously clear the other. Alternative four would maintain the two overlooked Vistas in the future. And then finally, the Park Service would actively replant and manage all 15 Vista locations under Alternative 5, and this would result in a continuous natural forested landscape between the parkway and the river, similar to Alternative 1. And so we highlight that plan alternatives one and five would result in a more natural continuous forested landscape along the river as one of our findings, which would not be consistent with several comprehensive plan policies that support parkway vista preservation. We have a second finding that summarizes the differences between Alternatives 2 through 4, with Alternative 2 fully restoring and maintaining all 15 VISTA locations along the parkway, while the other alternatives would only preserve some of these VISTA locations. Alternative 3 would maintain 9 of 15 VISTA locations, and then Alternative 4 would preserve the two overlooked VISTA locations in the future. And since this is still early in the park services EA process, we find that additional information and evaluation is needed for the commission to better understand the trade-offs between the different alternatives within the context of historic preservation, resource protection, maintenance, and funding. We note the VISTA management plan is still early in its EA process and the scoping phase. And we recommend that the Park Service continue its coordination with all appropriate stakeholders, members of the public and consulting parties through their ongoing NEPA and Section 106 processes. So with that, that concludes my presentation. All of these comments are included in our staff report to the commission. We have also incorporated many of our comments into today's presentation. And I would like to note that we have five Park Service representatives here with us today. one of whom is Jennifer Medello, who is the superintendent of the George Washington Memorial Parkway, who would like to provide a brief statement in support of the Park Service VISTA plan immediately following my presentation. And then we also have four other Park Service members here today who are available for any questions that you may have as well. Thank you.

Thanks a lot, Mike. Superintendent Medello, if you'd like to... Yes, please, whenever you're ready.

I'm Jen Modelo. I'm the superintendent of the George Washington Memorial Parkway. I'm joined by members of our park leadership team here. I have our deputy superintendent, Vince Bates, our chief of resource management, Maureen Joseph, and our cultural resource manager, Megan Bailey. So I really thank you very much for your time and your consideration as we are early in this process. I'm very much looking forward to getting your feedback on this. As part of our ongoing commitment to the North Parkway Section Rehabilitation Project, this is a major undertaking, the first time the road has been rehabilitated since it was originally completed, the section in the 1960s. This project is nearing completion. As we were going through this rehabilitation, we also wanted to look at the historic vistas and take care of those. As you know, we started that work as described by the staff here. And as we were undertaking that work, We determined that the scope and scale of removal of native plants was much bigger than we originally thought and we paused it and we decided to go through a public process with this. We have completed the NHPA compliance on this and the VISTA rehabilitation is part of the programmatic agreement that we have, but we decided we have to go through NEPA and the public process. Here we are accounting for that work that was already done, plus our ultimate goal to restore the vistas that are in our Vista Rehabilitation Guide. That being said, we are really committed to this full review. We believe it brings transparency to the process and to what we are doing and will help us weigh the impacts on cultural resource and natural resources with the visitor experience. We started with public scoping without a preferred alternative in hand because we want to understand what the public values as users of the parkway. We also want to evaluate through this process the funding and staffing resources that it will take to actually maintain these VISTAs for the long term. So that will be part of our process. And our goal is to establish this long-term VISTA management plan that supports our mission for the parkway to balance that visitor experience and our resource preservation. I don't have much else to say there on that. So I'm here if you all have any questions and other members of the team. Thank you again for your time.

Thank you, Superintendent. And thank you again, Mike. Do any commissioners have any questions either for our team or for the park service?

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, sir.

The parkway, does it have bike access access?

Not on this section.

Not on this section, right.

The Mount Vernon Trail that goes from Mount Vernon to essentially the Theodore Roosevelt Island, this section does not have bikes. Right.

I mean, I think it'd be awkward to make that happen, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

We have 26 million drivers a year on this section of the parkway.

Yeah. No shoulders. Yeah, I learned about that the hard way. I used to be senior vice president at PRC in the systems group I chaired. I was in charge of. And one day I decided I lived in George. I lived on DuPont Circle to ride my bike to PRC. And I discovered I shouldn't be on the parkway with my bike. I managed to make it without being stopped by anybody, but I realized then it didn't go all the way up the parkway. Right, yeah. Okay.

We have the Potomac Heritage Trail.

I know. I know that. I've used that. Yeah, I know it terminates now. I got the message. Thank you.

I think I expressed the sense of the commission and our professional staff when I say that I'm very happy that Commissioner Dixon survived his interaction, but it might have gone very differently, but we're glad that you're here, sir. Are there any other questions for the presentation team?

I have one. So, One of the things that's not really clear in the different alternatives is the level of effort. You come away with the conclusion that the level of effort is the same across the alternatives, and you mentioned funding. So I think it's helpful to understand In reality, are we looking at two really well-maintained VISTAs trading off against 15 lesser maintained VISTAs? Because we know how budgets can be strained, and there are a lot of things that the Park Service is trying to do with its maintenance backlog. And so that's one thought is just, okay, understanding if we really are looking at, say, an alternative where all 15 VISTAs are going to be maintained at the level that you aspire to. just knowing the other competing demands on the budget?

So I know you're aware with your background that we rely on the annual appropriations process. So I cannot guarantee funding is available for many of the things we want to do. And VISTA management is one of those. I do think there is a varying level of effort in terms of staff, contracts, financial resources for the different scenarios here. And we're going to have to look at that closely once we get the feedback from the public, feedback that you all have to take into consideration our ultimate goal and then what can we realistically do in the long term with the funding that we may have available to us. and what's the trade-off for other things that we have to accomplish. So we've structured this with the multiple alternatives, one being looking at those overlooks that have the pull-outs where people can stop and take that view in, and then one being all 15 of them, which would be a much more significant effort than just the two.

Thank you, Superintendent. Do any other commissioners have questions at this time? We do have. Oh, sorry, sir. Did you say go through there?

Twenty six million drivers a year.

Yeah. I mean, it's a pretty busy place and pulling off to use the vistas. Have you looked at that from a safety and security perspective? I know that's probably not part of this discussion, but.

Well, so that will be one of the factors that we consider in our evaluation. And we're looking forward to hearing from the public to see if they have any safety concerns around this. But we'll definitely look at that. Top priority for me is safety.

Do you know how much those vistas are used? Any traffic?

The overlooks in particular, I don't have that answer off the top.

Thank you. Any other questions? We do have a member of the public who's signed up to testify on this project. We have a Mr. Glenn Tobin.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you loud and clear, sir. If you want to continue whenever you're ready to proceed.

Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity to comment today. And I'd like to also commend Superintendent Modelo and her team for creating such an open process. Chairman Scharf and other commissioners, as I said, my name is Glenn Tobin. I would say I love the GW Parkway. I'm an active user of the park. I've also volunteered for thousands of hours to help improve it. Like many of you, I love a good view and spectacular scenery. I urge the Commission to consider adding four points to its feedback to the NPS regarding the upcoming EA. First, I urge that you request that the EA consider the impact of both the trees that were improperly removed in 2024 and any trees that could still be removed. The Park Service is describing the as-is situation as one in which the trees and forest have already been partially removed. As a citizen, this just doesn't seem right to me. Actions were taken without authority, and now the Park Service seeks to avoid accounting for those actions. Second, I urge the commission to be cautious in concluding there's clear historical evidence supporting the actual vistas being proposed. There are no documents contemporary to the creation of the parkway that describe the 15 proposed vistas other than the two overlooks, of course. What does exist are historical photographs, some of which you can see in the presentation today, which I'd argue don't prove intent. The photographs document large scale earth moving during which hills were lowered and valleys were filled. vegetation necessarily was removed in that process the absence of trees in the beautiful photos reflects construction disturbance not an enduring design vision third i urge the commission has already been discussed a little bit to request the park service demonstrate they can and are committing the budget to maintain any recommended vista over the long term The challenge with open vistas is that they will be nearly impossible to maintain over time, and creating open space will threaten the nearby beautiful and valuable natural areas. Fast-moving invasive plants were not problematic in the 1960s. Today they cause huge problems in the park, which you can see driving the parkway. If more open land is created, the problem will be worse as invasives thrive on open land and disturb soil. If invasives are not successfully managed, the beautiful surrounding forests will be overrun and destroyed. And if you want proof, look below the two existing overlooks and you will see acres of ravaged natural lands from the invasive kudzu plant. and the devastation is expanding every year. Managing invasives in and around the new VISTA areas will be complicated and expensive. No VISTA will remain open without substantial cost into perpetuity. Even if there were budget to manage this today, and there's not, we have no guarantee for the long term. Finally, I urge the Commission to request that all users of the park are considered in the evaluation of the alternatives. Drivers on the parkway are not the only users who benefit from the scenery of the park. Hikers on the congressionally established Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, kayakers and other boaters on the river, and people across the Potomac all enjoy the scenery of the park and can be affected by the VISTA project. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Tobin. Are there any questions for Mr. Tobin before we proceed? Thank you for commenting and being with us today, sir. With that, that concludes public testimony. Is there a motion to approve comments on the George Washington Memorial Parkway Vista Management Plan?

So moved.

Is there a second? Hearing a motion and a second, let's open it up to the Commission for discussion, and I'll start the deliberations again with Commissioner Stidham.

Thank you. And thank you, staff, for the presentation. I just really have to say that we're in the middle of a public comment period. We want to hear from all users, whether you drive a car, ride a bike, hike a trail, whatever you do in the park, we want to hear from you and we want you to weigh in on the alternatives as presented. It's open to the public and we look forward to hearing public feedback.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo.

No additional comments or questions. I appreciate the presentation and some good information that we need to have. I felt like I needed to have. And that's it.

Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach.

Well, it sounds like the process you're going through is very deliberative and you're thinking about your budget, which is going to be important when you evaluate the alternatives. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chairman. Commissioner Blair. No comment. Thank you, Commissioner Blair. Commissioner Tunstall-Williams.

Thank you. First, I'd like to thank the Park Service for the thoughtful approach to this project. One of the... beauty of coming along the parkway. And I typically mostly use it coming to or from either airport. And I'm always welcomed home by the beautiful views. And so that's something I really appreciate about the parkway. So I'm glad to see that you guys are thinking about it. But I also, as a fellow federal agency, recognize that what can you maintain? What does that look like? What is the budget? And so I think as the commission continues, as well as the general public, it would be great to see a couple additional information, some more imagery from each of the viewpoints so we can kind of prioritize understanding that there might be a limited number that you could restore. We could figure out what might make sense. I think also a matrix, either a pro-con or, you know, looking at what is achievable within, you know, low, medium, high budget, that kind of stuff. So it allows us to better make informed decision about the alternative that you guys might consider as your preferred. So otherwise, thank you for the word.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon. Chairman, I think there's a record being set here today. The record is the number of Smokey the Bears we have in the room at one time. But that's fine. My comment is this. I do think that in moving forward, it would be nice if they had some record. Right. A record of the number of people who used the vistas. I'm surprised you don't. I mean, it's probably not a hard thing to get a meter on. But you might also put some questionnaires in those that people might be willing to pick up and fill out for you. when they use them, just to put notes about how to use them, why they use them, just something very simple that could be collected that will give you feedback. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. If I could.

Yes, ma'am.

Just, Commissioner Dixon, Smokey the Bear is the Forest Service, by the way. Oh, my God. So I can't resist to not point that out since it is sort of a pet peeve of mine. These are park rangers.

Sorry, rangers.

I would also like to note that there is, in fact, a federal criminal statute that makes it a crime to commercially misappropriate the likeness of Smokey the Bear, Woodsy Owl, or any of their accompanying woodland creatures. So for those of you who throw the name of Smokey the Bear around all willy-nilly, be warned.

I got it, Joe.

With that having been said, Commissioner Cash...

I just want to say, so long as the overlook that has the best view of the Three Sisters formation out there can have a great interpretive signage element that talks about the perils of poor federal planning, I think that I would be all in favor of it. So thanks for that.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Henderson.

As a user of the parkway, I guess a driver on the parkway, I would just encourage consideration of part of this process. We had a fatality on the parkway a couple weeks ago where a tree fell on a car during rush hour. If we're going to be dealing with vegetation here, what do we need to do to address any trees that could pose dangers to the commuters on the parkway as well?

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart.

I appreciate the work of the Park Service and the work of the staff on this project. No additional comments.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Solis.

Yeah, again, I echo those last comments. Just appreciate everything you do. Parkway is beautiful. The overlooks are just tremendous. I think obviously preserving some of that, but how you sustain it at the level is probably the key to this. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. I'll just say for myself, I'd like to thank the National Park Service for seeking comments on this whole plan, for the obvious attention to detail that what we've received from them reveals. I'd like to thank the superintendent and her team for being here today. It's great to see you all. Thank you for what you do for the Park Service and for the community. And as always, I'd like to thank our team for their customary attention to detail and the presentation we have before us. I think it's a very interesting plan. Invasive kudzu, I think that's the first time we've had as explicit a reference to that since I joined the commission. But it's a real issue in a lot of natural areas. And I think it's something worth considering. So I thank Mr. Tobin as well for joining us. I would just say I look forward to seeing how this project resolves. I think balancing the needs of the various populations implicated here is going to be interesting, as well as, as Stuart is always quick to remind us, the budgetary demands of the federal government. But we look forward to seeing how this project develops and hopefully bringing it in one way or another for a successful planning approval conclusion. And with that, are there any other further questions or comments? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, could you please confirm the motion in the second and then take the vote by roll call?

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

Yes.

Commissioner Salizis? Yes. Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Blair?

Yes.

Commissioner Tunstall-Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you. And with that, we move on to agenda item 9D, which, as I referenced earlier, is a request to approve comments on concept plans for a new White House visitor screening facility. And with us today, we have Lee Webb from our team who's going to be presenting on that. Wait, are we going to the park? Did I mess this up?

No.

Mr. Chancellor, you're bringing up the right one. Okay. Got scared there for a second. Uh-oh.

I'm not excited about the leopards.

I love the leopards. But the screening facility is really exciting as well.

All right. I think we got the right one up, so we will start. So good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and commissioners. The Executive Office of the President, in conjunction with the United States Secret Service and with the National Park Service, has submitted concept plans for the construction of a new permanent security screening facility for visitors to the White House complex in downtown Washington, D.C., The project will be located within the White House grounds in President's Park, north of the National Mall. And as you can see on this image, the new visitor screening facility consists of two components, a below-grade facility with an entrance plaza on the south side of Sherman Park at the corner of E and 15th Streets, and a ground-level facility on East Executive Avenue between the proposed White House Ballroom and the Treasury Building. The facility will be used for visitors and arriving for tours and events. And staff notes that the existing White House and President's Park Master Plan from the year 2000 envisioned the creation of an underground screening facility located at the nearby Department of Commerce on 15th Street. As this is a concept review, the focus of today's presentation and analysis is to receive commission comments and feedback prior to the preparation of a more detailed preliminary submission. In this case, the focus of the review is understanding the appropriateness of the project for the site in context, understanding any particularly unique or complex issues that need to be addressed, and identifying any stakeholders that may need to be further involved. As such, in today's presentation, staff will identify comments for the Commission to adopt as guidance for further project development. The applicant has indicated that the proposed location for the visitor screening facility was strategically selected with consideration to multiple factors, including security, functionality, visitor flow, aesthetics, and cost. Citing the facility was performed in a manner to mitigate the permanent impact to the surrounding areas as much as possible. Alternate locations around the White House complex were considered extensively before selecting the preferred location. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission finds the applicant considered an adequate number of other locations for the new screening facility, but these were dismissed due to impacts and functional challenges. President's Park is an 82-acre park that serves as the setting for the White House and other federal buildings, as well as memorials and monuments. It is a nationally significant cultural landscape in the monumental core of Washington, D.C., and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. As I mentioned earlier, the below-grade component of the facility will be located under Sherman Park, which contains a statue of General William T. Sherman. Here are a few images and views of Sherman Park as it looks today. Currently, no trespass signs and layers of bike racks are being used to prevent pedestrian access to Sherman Park because the previous temporary fencing on the west side has been removed due to the east wing modernization construction. The Secret Service intends to reopen access to the Sherman statue in the park via the existing stairways off 15th Street, but needs to determine a permanent security solution in between the park and the White House. As these images show, today the Secret Service uses temporary trailers on East Executive Avenue to screen visitors following an initial identification screening on Hamilton Place and temporary tents. Now let's look at the concept design for the new visitor screening facility. Here is a rendering that shows the new screening facility with the entrance plaza at the corner of E and 15th Streets on the south side of Sherman Park, leading to the below-grade facility and the ground-level facility on East Executive Avenue between the proposed White House Ballroom and the Treasury Building. The below grade portion of the facility is approximately 33,000 square feet. The depth of the building accounts for 12 feet clear floor to underside of structure, two feet allocated for concrete structure, and a minimum of three feet ground cover above. Most of the proposed structure is intentionally positioned below grade within the park's west quadrant to reduce visual impact and to avoid a large existing sewer tunnel that passes through the southeast corner of the park. The project will require removal of the vegetation and ground within Sherman Park to create the below ground facility. The applicant has indicated that landscape restoration, including new tree plantings, will be provided within all impacted zones to reinstate and enhance the park's character. The ground-level facility on East Executive Avenue will be 4,000 square feet and where visitors will exit once they are screened in the below-ground facility. Badged White House workers and contractors will be able to enter the White House grounds once they go through the new ground-level facility. In terms of use, visitor queuing would begin outside in the lower plaza at the southeast corner of 15th and E Streets, where visitors form entry lanes for the initial ID check at the vestibule. Visitors then proceed through the lobby to a second ID checkpoint, followed by the pre-screening sequence. The primary screening area is sized in an open floor plan to accommodate the equipment and spatial requirements necessary to achieve the throughput capacities established by the Secret Service for large events, including those anticipated in the new ballroom. Upon successfully clearing primary screening, visitors proceed to escalators that return them to grade level north of the secure fence line along East Executive Avenue. For the new ground level facility, the applicant is proposing an initial architectural form and materiality based upon existing security booth vocabulary used throughout the campus. The building composition incorporates a sloped standing seam metal roof with extended overhangs supported by columns, along with stone cladding and a granite base. However, materials for the project will be refined as the new design is developed. For the next review, staff recommends that the Commission request the applicant provide additional views from the Treasury Building south elevation towards the new ground-level facility. In addition, staff recommends that the Commission encourage the applicant to explore opportunities to refine the design of the ground-level facility to be more compatible with its setting next to high-style classical buildings such as the Treasury Building. Also, for the next review, staff recommends that the commissioner request information on the location of the mature trees to be removed to construct the below-ground facility, as well as a landscape plan showing proposed new tree and landscape plantings, consistent with NCPC policies. In addition, we request the applicant provide the proposed materials for the entrance and plaza areas into the below-ground screening facility. While the proposed White House visitor screening facility provides a permanent solution to ensure the safety of visitors and workers to the White House complex by removing temporary trailers and tents currently used, this is only in a relatively small section of President's Park along 15th Street NW. As such, a similar holistic and comprehensive approach to perimeter security and public space is needed for all of Presidents and Lafayette parks, which currently have layers of temporary fencing and racks. We want to share with you images of the conditions around these parks that you see today, starting with these images at Lafayette Park, showing the temporary fencing that is currently up. Next are images of 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue showing layers of racks that are currently used as security barriers. Moving south to 15th and East Streets just below Sherman Park where you can see additional racks and other temporary barriers. These images are on Constitution Avenue looking north towards the White House. Now moving to the west is 17th and East Street showing the current conditions of the temporary perimeter security. and then finally moving to 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. Staff recommends the commission finds the existing use of temporary security elements around President's Park and the White House, particularly along Pennsylvania Avenue and E Street, continue to detract from the visitor experience and should be improved to help beautify President's Park once the East Wing Modernization Project and the White House Visitor Screening Facility are completed. A permanent plan for a well-designed perimeter security system 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 surrounding areas to the Commission in the near future. Understanding how all these projects work together to both beautify and protect the area will be important. As such, staff recommends the Commission request the applicant work with the National Park Service, the General Services Administration, the 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 the temporary security measures with an attractive, unified, permanent design solution without further limiting public access. To conclude my presentation, staff recommends that the Commission approves these comments on the concept plan, supporting the project goals to provide a permanent White House visitor screening facility for the United States Secret Service that can support security screening needs for visitor tours, large-scale events, White House staff, and contractors. As I've covered the executive director's recommendations in my presentation, I will not repeat them, but they're here for your reference. At this time, I would like to introduce Andy Stowes with the applicant team, who would like to say a few words to the commission. And he's also joined with Jeff Harner, who's with the design team, and they're here to help answer any questions the commission may have.

Thanks a lot, Lee.

Good afternoon, commissioners, chairmen, staff. Appreciate the opportunity to present this project for submission with our other partners, Park Service, Treasury, Executive Office of the President. Screening facilities at White House Complex are not a new effort for us. The service has worked with the commissions over the decades on several temporary solutions, some permanent solutions that have yet to be built or funded. We've worked with our stakeholders to develop a solution here that we think is very thoughtful, appropriate, and permanent and effective. The White House complex is unique. It's a 24-7, 365 high security facility. It also operates as a museum to the public. It also operates as the office for the executive office of the president and the living quarters for the president and his family. Those present unique challenges and we need to be able to screen appropriately for all situations. We've operated out of temporary structure since 2005. And so we bring this to you to work with you and the other commissions at the CFA to come up with an appropriate solution that we'd like to build on the complex. We're here to answer any of your questions and look forward to those. Thank you.

Thanks a lot for that. Do any commissioners have any questions either for Lee or for the Secret Service team? Yes, sir.

I'd like to know whether how much outside exposure will people have to sheltered? Will they be sheltered for most of this area? Is it kind of think of pews out in the weather and so forth? That would be a good question for the Secret Service.

Yes. So the queuing currently happens on the sidewalk. We're bringing them down into a plaza area. And then we have a lobby for extended queuing once you get inside. So it'll be a faster first ID check. And then the entire process that you're going through, there's queuing within the underground piece, which would be completely covered. But the actual plaza area is not... covered for that portion that you're ramping down.

Yeah, but like me, the large groups will be inside. Correct. Yes.

Correct.

That's fine. I just wondered because it's pretty bad to be outside like this. You're queuing up. So, yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Commissioner. Do any other commissioners have questions?

As you point out, Secret Service, Park Service, a number of federal partners having a comprehensive plan. Is that under development, or is there – how are you working together to make sure that that can be done? And that may be beyond the scope of this, but I'm just –

But I will address it. Again, this facility, primarily underground, incorporating within our existing perimeters, and we're focusing this presentation on that. We have started a project that is, again, we have had a couple of projects that are temporary that have come in front of commissions. We're taking a holistic master plan approach on the fencing barriers around the White House complex. I know when we came for the White House fence, we discussed that. Things have evolved through the threats and our operational procedures, but we're capturing all that. And again, Lafayette Park, First Division, Sherman Park, The larger ellipse is a little more challenging, but we're looking at that holistically so that we can talk about what the appearance of those barriers are and their function and when they're used and how they're used so that we would do that under another project because any fence in Sherman Park doesn't really coordinate with this project as much.

Thank you. Stuart. To that point, when you are looking at barriers like ballots, if they're needed, I want to encourage you to look at some of the Security architectural, we looked at once, a long time ago, we developed a kit of things you could use in replacing ballots. Places, things that could be useful for tourists to sit on or use. Otherwise, just all these ballots all over, which are not functional, but

We're very familiar with the product that was put up by NCPC years ago on all the different avenues and things, benches, telephone poles and everything where you incorporate, where it blends into the surroundings, but still defines a hard vehicle perimeter. Yeah.

Stewart? So, as someone who's cued a lot for the White House, I'm very excited about this project too. And so, I wanted to share a couple of thoughts. One is, I'm glad Commissioner Dixon raised the point about the throughput and how people queue. And I had a couple of questions in advance, and I appreciate a little bit of the back and forth. That for me is a very important aspect is, are we still going, does it solve the problem? Does it solve all the problems we're trying to solve here? with screening people. So thanks for asking that. And if we still have long lines that are exposed to the street, it's not really solving, I think, a key problem.

I think we're taking people off the public street as much as possible, again, depending on the size of the event. We do plan for staggered arrivals because the facility can only accommodate. Also, where they're going can only accommodate. The house actually has a limit on how many people we can actually have in there. for tours. So as the event planners develop, there'll be pre-function spaces. So we'll have people showing up in 15-minute intervals that maximizes seven lanes of screening equipment and five lanes of ID checks. So it'll be more than you've ever seen. There are going to be events like the Easter Egg Roll and large 5,000, 6,000-person events that We're not going to build this facility. That's well above what we need to be pushing people down to then come back up to go to the south grounds. So those have been taken off. But all the major events that are interior, we'll be able with a staggered arrival to you'll have a lot. You'll have a thousand people flowing through this rather quickly, but it's still going to take more than 10, 15 minutes.

Yeah. Yeah. Great. Okay. A couple more things. It, I think it'd be helpful to see all the temporary infrastructure that comes down as a result of this. And I think there was a little bit there in the materials, but like, you know, just having seen how much the security footprint has expanded over the years. Like I remember it, not that I'm, But I don't think I have. I mean, you can walk right into the Eisenhower Executive Office building right up the front steps and go in. And now there's so many parts that are inaccessible now, and it's inaccessible due to temporary barriers. So I think it'd be helpful to see all the temporary barriers that come down if that's possible.

Understood. Again, thank you. the goals are to limit people to get into the proper of EEOB, White House, Treasury, and so forth like that. We'll take into that consideration as much as we can. I also remember where the park was completely open over in Lafayette. Those pictures are showing there's a construction project that's in Lafayette. There's the East Wing Modernization Project. So there's an awful lot of temporary fencing that are in those photos that's not normally there, but there is still more there post-2020. 2021, 2023 events. So we're going to balance that again with our efforts in designing a holistic approach, maybe some things that are more permanent, but that are open and only closed as needed. We do close the parks on a regular basis throughout the day for security events and for just other reasons. So having that infrastructure in place to facilitate that easier and doesn't look as junky is our goal also.

Yeah. And the last thing I had one, is this the final, like the materials, have they been decided or are these still at flux? We've pumped through a lot in the last year.

At this concept level, we started with what the, campus standard is for these type of pop-up facilities. In the last three weeks, this has evolved a lot in terms of materiality and architecture and looking at the executive order by the president. So the design has elevated quite a bit since this presentation.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Yes, sir.

What's the total square footage underground?

33,000 underground plus 4,000 for the pop-up piece and then about 5,000 in the plaza. Okay. Thanks.

Any other questions? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve comments on concept plans for the White House visitor screening facility?

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner. Is there a second? Second. I'll open it now to the Commission for discussion, and we'll start with Commissioner Tunstall-Williams.

So I know that this is a huge need. I've queued through there as well. I've come from the EOB side, from this side. I appreciate that you're trying to put it underground. I think that is great. I think in the comments on the earlier study, the capital visitor screening was raised. I mean, it can be done elegantly. I happen to be in Quebec City over the holidays and the entry to their parliament, they've done a similar thing. that does not detract from the the building in front of it like the treasury um so i'm confident that you guys can do that but i would um a couple things i'd like to see in future um presentations is a little bit more about the context, particularly for the above-grade screening. What really struck me was the long view down Pennsylvania Avenue. It almost seems like the new building is going to block the view of what would have gone through the White House. I know the ballroom is changing that as well, but it would be nice to understand that context. One thing that I encourage you to look at is that entrance right there at the Sherman Park. The pedestrians and the vehicles coming out of the ellipse in the parking there, there might be some conflicts there. So I'd encourage you, particularly for large events, to think about how where that's cited and try to de-conflict vehicle. I don't know if there's a way to do some of the pre-screening at the White House Visitor Center that exists in the Department of Commerce. Then they come over, maybe it's multi-staged, obviously it doesn't work for people who have limited mobility, but might be another way to address for really large groups how to do that. And then lastly, I really, I know that's not the purpose of this presentation, but I really can't express enough how much this area would benefit from a master plan, a security master plan. On slide 23, there was an outline. I think that's what it needs to be. As I, you know, even coming from GSA over here, every time I walk over, I'm like, okay, which way do I go? Do I go up to H Street? Do I go to Constitution?

Is that me?

When your mic's on.

There's a small song. No.

I guess the comments are up. No, there's no way to know where you can cross. And so providing a little bit more surety for people coming, trying to cross, it really is a big barrier. So I think that's a big thing, the parking lot that is essentially developed for Secret Service vehicles to the north. Just trying to be thoughtful about how we can address that in the broader context. So understand that that's outside of the realm of this particular scope, but I would encourage... view of these projects.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon. Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Cash. Part of me feels like it's a little bit too soon, but I will say I think that... I mean, it's dwarfed by the other stuff that's going on around there, so I don't think I have as much concern there anymore. But I do appreciate that we're kind of thinking, hopefully thinking more holistically about the security around the White House. One of the things that came to mind is, are we looking at something similar on the 17th Street side? Because 15th Street, I mean... I walk along there all the time. And I mean, there's so much pickup drop off going on there. But I imagine it's happening on the other side. I think that things are actually a little bit more congested on the 17th Street side. I don't know where the where the business that goes in and out of the White House or the visitors come in and out. But it seems to me that we might be directing people over to the 15th Street side. I think that just speaks to the need for kind of the planning around it. Like, is that where people really are coming from? Because there's no parking or anything over there. So I just think that all that speaks a lot to the need for looking at this holistically to make sure we're not just plopping a visitor screening facility because we had a little bit of space and we picked 15th and Pennsylvania to do it. So if you want to mention anything about the 17th Street side and future accommodation, but that's the big thing that popped in.

Yeah, actually, yeah. NCPC approved a GSA project in 2011, I believe, and it was funded. It lost funding in 2012. It was below the plaza at the EEOB. So there is a screening solution there. It just has not been funded, and it needs to be updated from the design because it's a bit stale. It's 15 years old. But the service, and that is for the support of the EEOB and everybody for day-to-day work and visitors on that side. So part of our... napkin master plan is actually north and south, east and west facilities. That would have three to four lanes to be able to accommodate everything. We have a temporary building on the southwest that's our pop-up right there that was put in as part of a project that was going on and has remained until we get that north one there. So there are thoughtful solutions on how we screen people and we look at which populations are coming and going. Once you enter the White House complex, you aren't allowed to go everywhere. So there are pockets of populations between Treasury and EEOB and the White House and so forth. So the screening of those individuals is very key as to where that occurs.

Yeah, and I think to piggyback off what you said, I mean, I've been there for some of the I know what you call it when you go and look at all the plants and stuff there and what the president's got. Yeah. So, I mean, one thing that you notice is and those are those big events like you're talking about, but you still you get out of the grounds. It seems like you're just ushered out wherever you can go, whatever happens to be open that day. So I think that anything to kind of like make it all more coherent, make it all more predictable is to the good for anyone visiting the White House. And again, on this side, it just happens to be there's a lot going on on the side of the White House. But I think that it is a good solution. Looking underground can work in some of these situations. So if 17th Street can eventually be reimagined or refunded, I think that would be to the good. So thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Henderson. No comments. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart.

No additional comments. Thanks to the staff for their work on this project.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Solis is.

Pictures worth a thousand words. Doesn't look too great, right? And certainly the high security issues that you have to deal with on a daily basis. I do think we need a master plan and there has to be a sense of urgency to this kind of activity, especially around the White House. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Stidham.

Just to echo what Mr. Soles already said, we're working together on this project. I think it's a the picture speaks millions of words in this case. When you look at that facility, the temporary nature of it and how rough it looks for screening that many people over that period of time is just not meant for a temporary facility. And we really need a facility that is appropriate for an entrance to this area. And I think that we are on the beginning stages of getting there. So thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo.

No additional comments or all the work on this. Looking forward to seeing the next iteration. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach.

No further comments.

Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Commissioner Blair I think has left us. I'll just say a couple things very quickly. First of all, and I think this is echoed by our staff's recommendations here, I wouldn't worry too much about architectural congruence with existing security huts. I would worry much more about how this looks in the context of the treasury building and the new ballroom and the other buildings that this is going to be in the middle of. Overall, this is a really complicated problem. I take my hat off to you all for finding a what I think is an elegant solution to a big part of that problem, which is entrance from the 15th Street side. I think undergrounding it is great. I was worried that if this actually went under the Sherman statue, that the whole thing could collapse, which would be very bad for any people queuing, but it appears that you're skirting around it, which is positive. Overall, I think it's just a very well-designed solution to the problem, and I look forward to seeing it when it comes back around. Thank you, as always, to the men and women of the Secret Service for what they do. And thank you to you, Lee, for a detailed presentation on a complicated and exciting new project. With that, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Madam Secretary, would you like to confirm the motion and second and then proceed to a vote by roll call?

Yes, the motion was made by Commissioner Stidham and seconded by Commissioner Dixon. Commissioner Cozart? Yes. Commissioner Solisis? Yes. Commissioner Stidham? Yes. Commissioner Argo? Yes. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Tonstall-Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

The motion carries. And Mr. Chairman, if we could pause momentarily to refresh the recording feed, and then we can get to the last two items.

to approve preliminary site and building plans for the National Zoological Park Construct New Arabian Leopard Habitat, which we are all extremely excited about, as we heard last time this came before us. We have with us Jamie Herr. Jamie, would you like to proceed?

I would, thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and members of the Commission. The Smithsonian Institution has submitted preliminary site and building plans to construct an Arabian leopard habitat at the National Zoological Park in Northwest Washington, D.C. for a Commission approval. The Commission previously provided comments on the concept plan at the January Commission meeting. As a reminder for the preliminary review stage, the Commission should be focused on topics such as the project's consistency with the federal elements of the comprehensive plan, the architectural and landscape strategy, the appropriateness of the site for the given context, and how the project will affect views and viewsheds. Since the commission just reviewed the project in January, I will focus on the key updates. The project site is approximately three quarters of an acre and is prominently located at a north bend in the Olmstead Walk, situated between the Panda Habitat and the Elephant House exhibit. It is close to the Connecticut Avenue entrance and across from the bus group entry, a restroom facility, and the Panda Plaza concessions area, all of which are heavily used by visitors. Two existing exhibits previously occupied the site, the former bison habitat, which closed in 2024, and the Zoo in Your Backyard exhibit, which featured plants native to the Washington, D.C. area. A quick reminder that the goals of the project include creating a large habitat designed with the flexibility to accommodate future species and with opportunities for the cats to display their natural climbing behaviors, a new animal care facility with day room, dens, and staff support space, accessible public viewing areas, including a VIP viewing area designed within the context of the existing site, and that will reuse the bison structures if possible. In addition, the habitat needs to be designed with the influence of the arid Rocky Mountains of the Arabian Peninsula, while taking into consideration the historic environment of the National Zoological Park, Historic District, and Olmstead Walk. The applicant has updated the design since the concept review and staff recommends the commission support the increased natural space for the animals with unique viewing experiences for visitors in the refined Oasis Wadi hybrid habitat design. The applicant provided updated details about the habitat with visitor experiences, screen enclosure details, a new landscape plan, an updated animal care building, and signage, shade, and fencing details. The applicant has spent extensive time coordinating with zoo horticulture experts to create a landscape plan that meets both the existing context of the zoo, the historic Olmsted Walk planting guidance and other planting themes, but then also creates a habitat that will be welcoming and familiar to the animals. The applicant has received comments about the planting plan, specifically that there are not enough pollinators, including common milkweed, there are too many non-native species, and there is bamboo included, which is considered invasive. the applicant has responded that each plant was selected with thought and purpose given the needs of the animals and the context within the zoo. Staff concurs with the applicant's response and notes that the NCPC Pollinator Best Practices Resource Guide encourages applicants to include pollinators where appropriate and recognizes that there are other plant species that may be more appropriate to meet a project's goals and objectives. As such, staff recommends the Commission support the updated landscape plan that blends plant species native to the Arabian Peninsula with the landscape palette of the historic Olmstead Walk. This is the updated view of the habitat with the care building in the foreground and the screened enclosure behind. Staff recommends the commission support the reduced slope of the lifted roof line over the day room of the animal care building, which maintains the pitch roof typologies elsewhere in the park and softens the upturned roof line. The additional natural stone and a green colored roof on the animal care building that better coordinate with the existing architecture and simplify the visual expression of the materials. This view shows the west entry into the habitat and the proposed arch mesh. The applicant studied a variety of options and is proposing a charcoal gray enclosure structure with black mesh, and staff recommends the commission support the applicant's preferred charcoal gray arch enclosure supports and black mesh, which is less visually intrusive than other enclosure color combinations considered. Staff recommends the applicant continue to refine the designs of the proposed shade structures, screen enclosure, planting plan and tree replacement plan as they work toward the final design. The applicant has been responsive to the commission's previous comments and staff recommends the commission approves the preliminary site and building plans for the Smithsonian institutions construct Arabian leopard habitat at the National Zoological Park in Northwest Washington, DC. The other recommendations have been noted in the presentation but they are included here for your reference. This concludes my presentation. The applicant and the design team are here to answer any questions the commission may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Jamie. Do any commissioners have any questions for Jamie at this time? Yes, ma'am.

What is the material of the day room, that roof? the green or blue, it looks very discordant, and it may just be the rendering. I'm curious what the...

It probably is the rendering. The application has it as like a faux slate. It actually matches color-wise some of the historic slate roofs across the Olmsted Walk.

Okay, so it's a rendering issue.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Interesting. Do we have any other questions for Jamie at this time? Hearing none, I believe we have Mr. Bernard Byrne, who would like to provide some testimony on this project. Is he with us? Mr. Byrne?

Yes, can you hear me?

We can hear you, sir.

Thank you. This project does not adequately conform to the recommendation in the NCP's Pollinated Best Practices Guide. In response to my comments, Michael Beglinger, the Director of Facility Operations for the National Zoo, told Jamie Hare in writing that, quote, historic aesthetic traditions at the zoo are responsible for this nonconformance. The NCPC guides states that it is acceptable to use some non-invaded native plants in design landscapes as long as they are not considered invasive. However, this project will add bamboo to the zoo's population of that non-native plant in accordance with one such, quote, historical aesthetic tradition. Several bamboo species are on the invasive plant list of the National Park Service, Arlington County, and the city of Alexandria, among many others. One within the same genus that this product will install has been reported outside of cultivation in nearly 400 U.S. cities and counties, including 51 counties in Fairfax County and 21 locations in Washington, D.C. Some such locations of this and other species are on Rock Creek Park National Park, right next to the zoo. As the plant spreads by seed, the zoo's bamboo population has supported its local invasiveness for a long time. That's tradition? The density guide states that common milkweed, especially syriaca, is clearly an important species that is critical to survival of monarch butterflies. The guide further states that common milkweed should be planted on federal landscapes to the fullest extent possible and as appropriate for site conditions. However, Mr. Beglinger stated that the zoo nutrition experts do not permit several pollinated friendly plants that I named to be acceptable plantings in and around the zoo exhibits. These plants include common milkweed, arrowhead, arrowwood varbunum, black cherry, and buttonbush. Mr. Beglinger claimed that these plants have primary defenses, plant defenses, or contain toxins that can harm many zoo animals. Mr. Ballinger's claim makes no sense. It is absurd. The plant will not add any, the plant project will not add any plants to the zoo animals enclosures, but will only install plants in their pathways outside of those enclosures. Zoo animals will not be able to eat or touch the plants. Zookeepers remove unwanted plants from their animal's exposures. Further, avid viburnum has no non-toxicity or harmful primary plant defense. Please, therefore, reject Mr. Beglinger's claims. Please vote to ask the zoo to follow the NCP's guidelines recommendations, and above all, to stop planting common milkweed and to stop planting bamboo. This is really helping to destroy Rock Creek National Park. That's a federal facility. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Byrne. Are there any questions for our witness today? Hearing none, thank you, sir. Thank you for joining us as always. And as I've told you before, I truly do admire your dedication to the NCPC's pollinators policy and to the issues that clearly motivate you and in which you're clearly expert. We always appreciate you joining us. That concludes the public testimony on this issue for today. With that, is there a motion to approve preliminary site and building plans for the National Zoological Park Construct New Arabian Leopard Habitat? Thank you, Commissioner. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner. I'll now open it up to the Commission for discussion, and I will start the deliberations with Commissioner Argo.

Okay. I think this is a great plan. I'd like to see those leopards in an appropriate habitat. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach.

I have nothing further on top of those.

A lot of people are very excited about the exhibit. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Commissioner Tunstall-Williams.

Well, you may guess by my question. For the most part, I think it's a great project, but I would like to see a little bit more about the materiality of the daycare building and the context that it's relating to. I spend a fair amount of time in the zoo because it's not because I live there, but because I live close. And it's striking me as kind of out of context. So I'm just curious to see how it fits. But great project. I think it's exciting to have something new coming.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon. I associate myself with Commissioner Argo's response.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cash. Well, just because I had so much time on my hands when I didn't have to deal with all the White House stuff, I did kind of read through this EDR pretty closely. And just because it's interesting, I will note, so I saw steel mesh 316. I'm like, what else have I seen that before? And actually, it's very similar material to what the Eisenhower tapestry is made out of, which led me down a whole rabbit or a leopard hole, whatever you want to call it. About patina and all that stuff. And actually one of the things that I do kind of like, it seems like it's not completely settled, but the color of it right now is proposed to be a black mesh or like a charcoal mesh or very dark because even though it sounds counterintuitive when it's very dark, it actually makes it easier to see through. If you remember back from when we were talking about the White House or a chicken coop or something like that. But the other side of that is pollen this time of year, bird droppings in a park, all that stuff. Unless it's like kind of religiously cleaned, you're going to have a big black dome that you can normally see through. only if it's kept clean. So just in looking at the materiality and if you're going to decide to oxidize and burn it black or keep it a natural, I hope that stuff stays in mind because I want this to be a good experience for people and not to, because we don't have something like this, I think in the zoo, like this kind of enclosure. So just making sure that it stays how it's supposed to, that it's well-maintained in the future. So that was my only comment that I thought of, bringing it right back around to our other mesh structures that we've looked at. So thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Henderson.

Nothing, nothing further. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart.

Commissioner Cozart had to.

Oh, sorry. Commissioner Solis is support the staff recommendation. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner and Commissioner Stidham.

I associate myself with comments already made. I sort of wondered if it was a rendering issue too because the paving looked really weird too. So understanding a bit more about the materiality and how it sort of fits would be great. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. Speaking for myself, I remain extraordinarily excited about the leopard habitat. I'm excited to see the leopards in the habitat most of all. I think we've seen real progress from when this first came before the commission, which is always gratifying and good to see. And I look forward to seeing how it continues to evolve and develop. I think some of the comments we've had from commissioners today are quite insightful. And I think that our staff's overall comments and recommendation have been great, and I hope that they are listened to. The National Zoo is actually one of my favorite places in Washington, D.C., and as previous commissioners have said, This may be the most exciting new exhibit to get there in a very long time. I think the location is particularly prominent if you think of kind of the walking plan through the zoo. And I hope that we are able to get to a place where we have a truly beautiful exhibit that will highlight these truly beautiful animals here in our nation's capital. Thank you as always to Jamie, to our entire staff and team for their customary outstanding work. And with that, if there are no further questions or comments, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion in second and take the vote by roll call?

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

Yes.

Commissioner Argo?

Yes.

Vice Chairman Levenbach?

Yes.

Chairman Scharf?

Yes.

Commissioner Tunstall-Williams? Yes. Commissioner Dixon?

Yes.

Commissioner Cash?

Yes.

Commissioner Henderson?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Thank you. With that motion having carried, we now move on to agenda item 9F, which is a request to approve comments on concept plans for the Naval Research Laboratory P250 Biomolecular Science and Synthetic Biology Laboratory. We have Laura Shipman, who will be presenting again today. Thank you for being with us again, Laura, and you may proceed when ready. Fire when ready, as our friends in the Navy might say.

The Department of the Navy has submitted concept plans for a new biomolecular science and synthetic biology laboratory on the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. As a reminder, at the concept review stage, the Commission is focused on topics such as general consistency with NCPC policies, appropriateness of the project for the site, and identification of any complex issues. The proposed P250 lab building will be constructed on an existing parking lot located on the western side of the NRL along the Potomac River. The applicant evaluated five sites for the project and selected alternative B circled in green because it provides the necessary space for the project and has appropriate standoff distances from the perimeter fence line. The selected development site aligns with guidance in the 2014 NRL Installation Master Plan approved by the Commission, which encourages infill development on surface parking when feasible. The project site is also included in the plan as a parcel with potential for future development to meet mission requirements. The applicant notes that the project will not adversely impact the NRL parking ratio, existing employees will be relocated, resulting in no change in the overall number of personnel, as well as a net loss of parking spaces on the installation. Zooming in, the project site includes two small storage buildings, 205 and 206, which will be relocated south as part of the project. The site is also adjacent to an open space to the east that will be preserved with two small historic structures labeled A20 and A21. The master plan recommends creating a complete network of walkways that connect people to facilities and outdoor spaces. As such, staff recommends that the site design incorporate improved pedestrian pathways and sidewalks to enhance connectivity between the facility, the adjacent open space area to the east, and the riverfront. The NRL is one of many significant shoreline properties along the Potomac River noted in the comprehensive plan federal environment element, where efforts to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff are critical to protect the region's waterways and water resources. This is the proposed site and landscape plan, which shows the building to the east of the site with a reconfigured parking area at its front on Smith Street, which runs along the river. The applicant states that the project will meet unified facilities criteria and district stormwater management requirements. However, the proposed reconfigured parking lot with impervious surfaces is not a preferred use adjacent to a major regional waterway. To mitigate this placement, staff recommends the applicant consider permeable paving in the parking lot that fronts on the Potomac River, along with additional trees and vegetative screening in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy FEC-5. Additionally, the applicant is currently analyzing the flooding risks to calculate the proper elevation above grade for the building. Staff recommends the Commission request further information in the next submission on the proposed flooding resilience strategies that will be incorporated into the site and building design. Here are perspectives of the proposed building, which will be four floors and approximately 89,000 square feet with a laboratory, associated support and office areas, as well as an equipment penthouse. Each story will be 18 feet with a total building height of approximately 92 feet. Exterior materials will be primarily white and light gray metal panels, dark gray precast concrete, and curtain wall and storefront window systems. The varied designs of the facade shown in the submission respond to solar orientation and interior functions. However, there is a lack of cohesion in the building design overall. While the laboratory is immediately surrounded by disparate uses and architectural styles, the NRL is generally characterized by predominantly low and mid-rise buildings, with functional design and minimal ornamentation as shown in this slide. As the project is developed, staff recommends the applicant consider exploring a more simplified and cohesive building design, compatible with and reflective of the architecture throughout the campus, particularly the nearby historic laboratory structures surrounding the Central Mall. Staff also recommends the Commission request renderings including surrounding buildings to illustrate the massing and height of the proposed development in context. The submission indicates that 36 trees will be removed for the proposed development and 133 will be replaced in accordance with comprehensive plan policies, including 34 on the project site and the remaining 99 across the campus. Staff recommends the commission request the general locations of offsite tree replacement to be provided with the next submission. The applicant has indicated that plantings across the project site will include a range of native species in accordance with the NCPC Pollinator's Best Practices Resource Guide, where feasible. In particular, areas outside of required security standoff setbacks are being added to the landscape scope as pollinator gardens to improve habitat adjacent to the shore of the Potomac. With that, staff recommends the Commission approve the comments on the P250 lab concept plans highlighted throughout my presentation and listed on the following slides. And that concludes my presentation. Representatives from the Department of the Navy and the design team are also available to respond to any questions from the Commission. Thank you.

Thank you. Do any commissioners have any questions for Laura or I guess for members of the Navy design team while we're here? Yes, Commissioner.

So the functions of this building, do they exist out? Is this a new function coming to the campus or does it exist? Or does it exist outside the camp? I'm not saying this very well. Yes. Obviously, it doesn't currently exist on the campus. Where does it exist today? Or is this a new feature?

Currently, this research is being done on the campus, but in old buildings that are not really able to maintain some of the HVAC cooling, humidity, and other utility constraints that are required for the research. And we can't also bring in some new equipment due to the existing facilities, height limitations, existing columns, because The current facility was retrofitted as a laboratory. And so this would enable a purpose-built laboratory for the research that we're currently doing and the research that is anticipated to be needed to be field for national defense.

Great. That is great to know. Just a couple more questions. This is behind the levee, right? But you saw flooding issues? Or you anticipate more flooding issues?

We have not had flooding issues in this area, but it is within the 500-year floodplain. And so because of DOD requirements, DOW requirements, excuse me, we have to look at the DOD sea level risk and the FEMA floodplain and determine which one is more adverse and then plan for that.

So we're in the middle of that analysis. Is the levee project that the campus was previously looking at still underway or being considered?

There is a levee project at the north installation, which is Joint Base Anacostia Bowling, which is a separate installation than ours. We currently don't have a levee project. We have an existing flood wall that was recently repaired to the same elevation that it already existed at.

OK, that's helpful. And then one last question. The design of this building is so very different than the rest of the structures that currently exist on the campus. Can you sort of walk me through the intent of such a modern structure amongst these facilities?

I'm going to have to rely on our design team and the AE who should be on the line in order to be able to answer those questions.

Yeah. Hi, my name is Daniel Milchak. I'm an architect with the design team. Yeah, the intent with the way the building looks, the facades, they're wanting it They're wanting to bring in and attract new folks. So they want to bring in and they want the building to look more and kind of transition to a new era into something that's more contemporary. So not necessarily leaving things in the past, still pulling from materials and stuff that are nearby and on base, but wanting to kind of take that next jump into kind of a new era for the base and new facilities. I think this is going to be one of the new new construction in the last 15 or 20 years. So they're wanting to kind of revamp that and be able to bring in new folks and be able to retain new folks. So the way we have it kind of positioned and set up is based on some solar orientation. So we have you know the large spans of glass on the north side there so you get that nice natural light and that's where we have a lot of the office spaces the the west side of the facilities also has a lot of glass and that gives nice panoramic views of the river and then the south and kind of the east sides of the facility are where the majority of the lab functions are that don't necessarily warrant a lot of glazing And so that's kind of how we kind of set it up material-wise, pulling for metal panels, precast panels. So building 208 to the north of us is precast. 859 to the south of us is a large metal building. So pulling that metal, the metal panel materials from the adjacent facilities.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Vice Chairman?

Well, the biologist in me looks like a nice place to do research. But I do want to touch on those comments about the design. And I noticed in the comments from the Commission of Fine Arts that they also talked about the executive order making federal architecture beautiful again. The comments said that the design is inappropriate for this important research institution. And I wanted to get your reactions to that and see what kind of thinking you've done since these comments. I know they're recently submitted, but to what extent have they prompted you to go back and take a look at the design?

Thank you, Chairman. I'll take that question. So, yes, we are actively having conversations internally about the comments we received from the CFA and the design of the building. We're not prepared to discuss about the way we're moving forward following those comments today because we're still having those conversations internally. But we are considering them and we're trying to determine the best path forward.

So do we just for process, do we see a redesign? If there's a redesign or even if there's not a redesign, it comes back one more time before that. OK.

Yeah, this is concept. So presumably we'd see prelim and then final. So we have runway. That was my concern too. I was just going to say a similar question. We've got NEO requires classical architecture where possible. I don't think we've applied it directly to the military yet. At least this commission has not considered that in a military context before. But I also noted that CFA had dinged you all on that. And if there's a way that we can get this design more in conformity with current federal building standards and preferred architectural nomenclature, I think that would be helpful. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the project team or our team?

I have a question. And Laura, you may have mentioned it and I missed it. Is the facility historic? Has it been evaluated? I saw there was something about NHP up. I just didn't know what the...

Right, so while NCPC does not have a Section 106 responsibility, the project will go through a 106 process, and I think Richard can add more information on how that process is progressing.

Yes, we are preparing to submit to the DC SHPO currently.

Okay, so has it been determined eligible or listed, or you're doing that process right now?

Sorry, just to confirm, has what been?

Has the facility, the whole research laboratory, is it a historic district?

Oh yeah, so we have our Cultural Resources Program Manager on the line. I'm going to have to defer to her on that. Julie, are you there and can you field that question? She might not.

Richard, I don't see Julie on the line.

Oh, okay. Jen, do you have any insight into the historic district?

The laboratory as a whole is eligible from the National Register of Historic Places. I believe it's called the Bellevue Annex Naval Research Laboratory District. Okay, thank you. So the whole lab as a whole.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Awesome. Are there any other questions for the project team? Yes, sir.

Given that this is about 10 blocks from my house, I want to know what you do over there. Can you answer that here? Is this appropriate? I mean, I've Googled it. This is serious stuff.

Actually, I'm curious. What's the highest biosafety level you guys are planning to contain here? If that's not classified, is that something you can say in an open setting?

Um, it's not classified, but I'm not sure, but I know we're not allowed the whole lab. We're not allowed to work with, I think anything above two. I'm not sure which direction it goes, but not the severe stuff.

So no gain of function research on coronavirus. I'm kidding.

No, absolutely not. Um, we do have a description of the type of biomolecular work we do on our website, which is publicly releasable. I could read that for you if you'd like.

Maybe you should share it with me off record. I don't want to hold a staff up for that.

Sure. Um,

I just Googled and read it. It's amazing. This is like making things from bio cells and stuff.

This group studies complex biomolecular systems to understand how biology solves difficult structural, functional, and sensing problems. Technological areas currently being studied include molecular and microstructure design, molecular biology, imaging of cells using nanoparticles, sensor design and prototype development for biosurveillance or underwater chemical detection and energy harvesting. There conducts cross-disciplinary research in areas of immunology, biochemistry, systems biology, electrochemistry, synthetic chemistry, microbiology, microlithography, photochemistry, biophysics, spectroscopy, advanced diagnostics, organic synthesis, and electro-optical engineering.

Thank you for that thorough review. I want you to know this is all happening in Anacostia River East. I'm very happy y'all are on our side.