NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION
+ + + + +
COMMISSION MEETING
+ + + + +
OPEN SESSION
+ + + + +
THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 2026
+ + + + +
The meeting convened via Video Teleconference, at 10:00 a.m. EST, William Scharf, Chair, presiding.
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
WILLIAM SCHARF, Chair, Presidential Appointee (At-Large) STUART LEVENBACH, Vice Chair,
Mayoral Appointee LINDA ARGO, Mayoral Appointee PHIL MENDELSON, Office of the Chairman of the
Council of the District of Columbia ANITA COZART, Office of the Mayor of
the District of Columbia ARRINGTON DIXON, Mayoral Appointee ELLIE McGOWAN, U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability WILLIAM HENDERSON, U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs PAUL J. SCHAEFER, Department of Defense TAMMY STIDHAM, Department of the Interior PAUL INGRASSIA, General Services
Administration
NCPC STAFF PRESENT: MARCEL C. ACOSTA, Executive Director MEGHAN HOTTEL-COX, General Counsel & Secretariat STEPHANIE FREE JAMIE HERR LEE WEBB
CONTENTS AGENDA PAGE Commission Roll Call
4 Report of the Chairman
6
Report of the Executive Director 13 Legislative Update 14
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 14
National Park Service Four Corners Temporary Fencing Project
Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History Wireless Communications Equipment Installation
ACTION ITEMS
Union Station Lighting Upgrades 16
National Park Service, Gen Echo Management Plan Amendment 34
United States Department of Defense, Olney Support Center Area Development Plan 52
White House East Wing 75 Modernization Project Adjourn
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
(10:00 a.m.) MS. HOTTEL-COX: We are now streaming. Chairman Scharf, we can begin the meeting.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thanks, Meghan. Good morning and welcome to the National Capital Planning Commission's March 5th, 2026 open session. First, Madam Secretary, could you please take the roll call?
COMMISSION ROLL CALL MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. Commissioner
Cozart? COMMISSIONER COZART: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Schaefer? COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham? COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman
Levenbach? Chairman Scharf? CHAIR SCHARF: Present.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? Commissioner Ingrassia?
COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Here.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Present.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Present.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner McGowan?
COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: Present.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Marcel Acosta, executive director, and Diane Sullivan, current planning division director, are also in the meeting. With those present, Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum to proceed.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Meghan. Noting the presence of a quorum, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Since we're virtual today, I don't have a gavel to bang on the desk, but I hope you will all duly consider this meeting now proceeding. Today's meeting is live-streamed and will be available, as is our custom, in a few days
on the NCPC website. One change to the agenda. I'd note that the Tidal Basin Development Concept Plan, which was previously scheduled to be considered during our open session today, has been withdrawn by the applicant, so that's been removed from the agenda. And with that change, if there's no objection, the agenda as posted and now amended is adopted as the order of business. Is there an objection? I should ask. I apologize. Hearing none, the agenda is adopted as the order of business. Again, because we're virtual, we will now play a short video clip of the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance.)
REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you. As you're all aware, today's meeting is being conducted completely virtually. I want to share how we'll be conducting commission business in light of that. Following staff presentations and any other testimony, I'm going to ask for a motion and a second as appropriate. And during commission
deliberations, we're going to be using a round-robin format. So I will ask each commissioner in turn if they have any comments. But obviously, if any commissioner wants to be heard at any time, just --unmute yourself and ask, and we'll obviously recognize you and you'll have a chance to speak. With that, I think our next item on the agenda is the report of the chair, which is me. As I announced at the previous meeting, we're doing this meeting virtually today in order to ensure that the public has an opportunity for full comment on the ballroom project.
There's obviously been significant public interest in the East Wing Modernization Project that we have on the agenda. I think it's very important that as many people as possible have the opportunity to be heard on a project of this importance. And a virtual meeting allows us to facilitate that public comment more effectively and efficiently than having either an in-person or a hybrid meeting would. That's a decision that was arrived at by our Executive Committee. In
making that decision, I relied on the recommendation of staff and also the recommendation of one of our longer-serving members Arrington Dixon, one of the mayor’s appointed representatives on the commission.
On these sorts of things Commissioner Dixon has a wealth of knowledge and experience, and I was -- I was pleased to be able to rely on -- on his counsel as we figured out how to -- how to make this work as effectively as possible. The morning portion of this meeting is expected to conclude before 1:00 PM. We're going to attempt to move through essentially all the projects on our agenda before we get to the East Wing Modernization Program or Project this morning. At which point, we're going to break and then we're going to resume the live stream at 1:00 PM. After that recess, and then we'll proceed with I believe it's agenda item 6D, the East Wing Modernization Project. That project will obviously we usually -- as we usually deal with projects we're going to hear a presentation from NCPC staff followed by
remarks from the applicant team. After the presentation and remarks commissioners will obviously have the opportunity to ask questions, both of staff and of the applicant team. And then once we conclude questions we'll move into public testimony.
We have, I believe it's about 100, individuals signed up to speak on the project. Given that each of those individuals is entitled to three or five minutes, depending on the nature of their testimony, that's going to take a long time. I think it's very important that each of these individuals has the opportunity to speak. They've taken the time to sign up. They're taking times out of what I -- they're taking time out of what I would presume are busy schedules to join us, and I think it's important that -- that each of these people are heard. As a result, we expect that this -- this meeting will run into tomorrow. I don't think we can move through a 100 comments just today. I intend to listen to every person who's signed up to provide public testimony.
I'm guessing that many of our
commissioners will have to drop in or drop out depending on their other commitments, particularly as we get into -- to tomorrow where we may have sort of a full day affair just hearing testimony on the East Wing Modernization. But one way or the other, we are going to make sure that members of the public have the opportunity to be heard on this project, and we will -- we'll get through this together as a commission and as a team, and I for one am -- I'm pretty excited to see what the day has in store.
Given the amount of the testimony that we're hearing and the large volume of written comments, the commission will not deliberate or vote immediately after public testimony, as would be our usual procedure. Instead, we're going to take the time to deliberate and we're going to have a final vote on April 2nd, 2026, that's our next scheduled public meeting. So I hope that all of my fellow commissioners will take that time between our meetings today and tomorrow and April
2nd to consider obviously the applicant team's presentation, NCPC staff's recommendations, the entire process we've had up until this point, and then also the public testimony that we receive in arriving in a decision of how they end up wanting to vote on this project.
With all that having been said, I think it's also very important to note that the East Wing Modernization Project is an important project. It's a -- I'd say a very important project, but that shouldn't detract from the other business we have to conduct this morning. We have a number of very exciting projects coming before us, some of which we've seen before, and I for one am excited to get down to the business of this commission as we proceed through a fairly busy agenda this morning before we get to the East Wing Modernization Project.
That's all I really have. Thank you all for bearing with us. Hopefully, we'll keep technical difficulties to a minimum. Zoom hates me historically, so we'll see how that goes. But
with that I'll turn to agenda item 3 which is always -- is the report of our Executive Director, Marcel Acosta. Marcel?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman.
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Thank you, Chair.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIR SCHARF: Yes, Arrington?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I just want to let you know I appreciate your clarity in presenting this complicated and gr -- very important. I'm also pleased that our next meeting to vote on it will not be on the 1st of April, but on the 2nd of April. So with that, thank you for your presentation letting us know how we are going to proceed. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: I have a long history of April Fool's Day pranks gone horribly wrong, including one time when I fake proposed to a dear friend of mine and my family had a minor freak out. So we're going to avoid April 1st, and we'll be back on April 2nd, so -- Marcel, sorry.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MR. ACOSTA: Well, thank you, Chair Scharf, and good morning, Commissioners. Given the length of today's agenda, I only have one announcement. We're pleased to welcome Robert Harris to our staff as an information technology specialist. He'll support the agency's cybersecurity and provide help desk support. Previously, Robert served as an IT contractor supporting federal agencies and also served as a systems administrator. He earned a Bachelor's degree in Cybersecurity and Information Assurance from Western Governors University. So welcome aboard, Robert, if you would just say a few -something so people know who you are on the screen.
MR. HARRIS: Absolutely. Thanks so much, Marcel. I'm very happy to join the NCPC team, and I look forward to supporting this commission.
MR. ACOSTA: Well, thank you, Robert. And now the Commission knows where to go for help desk support during our Commission meeting. You do have my full report in your packets, and I'm
happy to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Marcel, and welcome to the team, Robert. Do any commissioners have any questions for our esteemed executive director? Hearing none, we'll proceed to agenda item 4, which is our legislative update presented by our General Counsel and Secretary, Meghan Hottel-Cox.
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
MS. HOTTEL-COX: I don't have any specific items to provide an update on, but I'm happy to answer questions about pending legislation if commissioners have any.
CONSENT AGENDA
CHAIR SCHARF: Do any commissioners have questions for Meghan on pending legislative items? Hearing none, we'll proceed to agenda item 5, which is our consent calendar. There are two items on this month's consent calendar. The first is to approve preliminary and final site development plans for the Four Corners temporary fence project. The second is to approve preliminary and
final building plans for the wireless communications equipment installation at the National Museum of Natural History. Are there any
| questions or comments - | ||
|---|---|---|
| COMMISSIONER DIXON: | Mr. Chairman? | |
| CHAIR SCHARF: | Yes. | |
| COMMISSIONER DIXON: | I move that we adopt | |
| the consent calendar. |
CHAIR SCHARF: Hearing a motion, is there a second to Commissioner Dixon's motion to adopt the consent calendar?
COMMISSIONER ARGO: Second. COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: I'll motion. CHAIR SCHARF: Hearing a motion and a
second. Is there any discussion on this item? Hearing none, Meghan, could you please confirm the motion and the second and take the vote by roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Cozart?
COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Schaefer? COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham? COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes.
| MS. | HOTTEL-COX: | Vice | Chairman |
| Levenbach? | |||
| VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: | Yes. |
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIR SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia. COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon. COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner McGowan. COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion passes.
UNION STATION LIGHTING UPGRADES CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Meghan. With
that, we turn to our three open session items on this morning's agenda. The first is agenda item 6A, which is a request to approve preliminary and final building plans for the Washington Union Station lighting upgrades. Really excited about this project. I loved it when they came in for concept, and I'm excited to see what they have in store for us. With that, I think we have Lee Webb presenting for us. Lee, are you with us?
MR. WEBB: Yes. Can you all see my screen
| and can you hear me? | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHAIR SCHARF: | Loud and clear. | |||||
| MR. WEBB: | Great. | Thank you. | So good | |||
| morning, | Chairman | Scharf | and | members | of | the |
commission. The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation has submitted preliminary and final plans for proposed improvements to the lighting at Washington Union Station, located at 50 Massachusetts Avenue Northeast in Washington, DC. This submission outlines upgrades to both interior and exterior lighting systems. However, as a reminder, NCPC's review is limited to the exterior
improvements.
The commission provided comments on the concept plans at their December 4th, 2025 meeting, expressing support for the overall project intent. Since the concept review, the applicant has responded to the commission's comments, and today I will share with you the revisions for this final plan. The applicant has decided not to pursue color lighting as part of these upgrades, and the current project will be limited to white lighting that conforms to NCPC's lighting policy. Here you can see circled in yellow Union Station and its location at the intersection of Massachusetts, Louisiana, and Delaware Avenues, just north of the US Capitol Complex and the National Mall. The Union Station Redevelopment Corporation oversees the station's operations, which also includes maintaining the station as a multimodal transportation center and supporting retail and amenities within the station. As I mentioned in December, Washington Union Station is the second busiest station in the Amtrak network. The
station is an important capital gateway announcing entry into the capital city as designated in NCPC's urban design element in the Comprehensive Plan. This project would help advance Executive Order 14252, making the District of Columbia safe and beautiful, as it would ensure federal building and lands are adequately uplit and help beautify public spaces.
Here is a current view of the station at night from Massachusetts Avenue. The team's design approach for the lighting upgrades is guided by three foundational objectives: to improve public safety and security, improve energy efficiency, and improve architectural enhancement. Here is a rendering shown to the commission in December with the proposed lighting upgrades.
The commission requested the applicant refine the lighting approach for the front facade of the station to provide some differentiation in brightness and contrast. And here is a new rendering showing the applicant's revision with a
clear differentiation of the lighting and modified contrast at the station's main entrance. Therefore, staff recommends that the commission finds that the applicant has responded to the commission's request to refine the lighting approach to ensure the front facade of the station provides some distinction in brightness and contrast while minimizing light loss and spillage.
In December, the commission requested the applicant to look at the possibility of lighting the barrel vault of the station, as it's a key architectural element of the building. This rendered view shows the sidewalls of the barrel vault with new lighting that allows the feature to be perceived at night.
Here is another view looking east towards the station, showing the sidewalls of the barrel vault as lighted. And so, staff recommends that the commission support the applicant's approach to lighting of the barrel vault of the station as an architectural element by illuminating the sides of the vault structure without creating excessive
lighting over the whole roof of the barreled vault.
As a reminder, here are images showing the lighting as it exists and as proposed in the colonnade along the front of the station and within the carriage porch area on the west side of the station. Overall, staff believes the proposed lighting enhancements will improve safety at Washington Union Station for visitors and users and will also allow for the architectural features to be more appreciated and understood while noting that the current project is limited to white lighting.
As such, staff recommends that the commission approve the preliminary and final building plans for lighting upgrades at Washington Union Station. Also, staff recommends that the applicant continue to coordinate with the National Park Service, the District Department of Transportation, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority regarding any improvements proposed within those adjacent areas
of jurisdiction.
We appreciate the applicant's responses to the commission's previous comments. As I've covered the executive director's recommendations in my presentation, I will not repeat them, but they're here for reference. And at this time, I'd like to introduce Doug Carr with the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, who would like to say a few words to the commission. Also with Doug is Brian Gaffney with the design team, and they're here to help any -- answer any questions the commission may have. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you very much, Lee. Doug, are you with us?
MR. CARR: I am. Can you hear me?
CHAIR SCHARF: Loud and clear.
MR. CARR: Good morning. I'm Doug Carr, president and CEO of Union Station Redevelopment Corporation. I'd like to begin by thanking the commissioners and staff for your time and thoughtful engagement throughout this review process. We are pleased to return today seeking
preliminary and final submission approval. Union Station is truly a unique and vital place. It is the only building within the monumental core that remains open to the public 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, serves the District as a primary multimodal transportation hub for residents, workers, and visitors alike -- is also one of the most recognizable landmarks in the monumental core, helping to orient people as they move through and around the area.
As noted, our three primary objectives have remained consistent. First, to improve public safety and security in and around the station by creating a more welcoming environment for all. Second, to reduce energy consumption through the use of focused LEDs, optics, and modern lighting controls. Third, to enhance and honor the historic character of this iconic building.
Since our last appearance before the commission, we have continued refining the design as we advanced through the required agency review
process. Most notably, we've revised our proposal to include only 3000K classic white lighting throughout the station. We have also gone through multiple iterations to careful --carefully calibrate brightness and focus for the exterior lighting. The goal has been to respect the building's architectural character without distortion and to ensure that the lighting complements rather than overpowers the surrounding context.
Over the past several months, our team has worked closely with the National Park Service, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office, and NCPC staff. Through the established Section 106 process with the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Office, we have received a determination of no adverse effect on March 4th of this year. At the February 19th, 2026 meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, we also received a unanimous final approval for our submission.
In addition, we have secured approvals
from the Federal Railroad Administration, the District Department of Transportation, the District Department of Energy and Environment, and Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority. Through close collaboration with each of these agencies, the result is an elegant, balanced, and precise lighting design for Union Station, one that enhances public safety, reduces energy consumption, and celebrates the station's enduring presence within the monumental core. Thank you very much for your consideration, and we respectfully request your support and approval of our lighting project.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Doug. Do any commissioners have any questions for the applicant team or for our staff?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIR SCHARF: Yes, Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I know this is not
– just a process thing, but I wanted to move the adopt -- move it so we have it before us for discussion and any changes we might want to make.
So I make a motion that we move -- move this forward, please.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. So there's a motion on the table. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: Second.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Tammy. We have a motion and a second. Can we -- I guess we should open it up to the commission for discussion now. Tammy, I saw that you had a question or a comment?
COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: I did. I just -just one question for Mr. Carr. It sounds like that you have all of your approvals lined up. So I'm just curious about your timeline for implementation. Do you have the funding that you need to execute this project?
MR. CARR: We're currently working to secure the funding as part of our strategy. We do have all the approvals pending this report. And we would be looking to get into construction within the next couple months, delivering perhaps sometime early next year. So we're very eager to
kind of move this forward, and we're ready to go.
COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: I'm sure. I'm sure. Thank you very much. That is all, Chairman, I have.
CHAIR SCHARF: Awesome. Are there any other questions? If not, I'll proceed sequentially through the commissioners so that everyone will have an opportunity to be heard on this project. Hearing none, I'll start deliberations with Commissioner Cozart.
COMMISSIONER COZART: Good morning. Appreciate that presentation. Thank you, Mr. Carr, for being here. And I don't have any additional questions or comments.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Cozart. Commissioner Schaefer?
COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER: Hi, good morning. I have nothing further. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Stidham?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Thank you for the presentation, and thank you for this project,
frankly. I think what is being proposed is exquisite. I think it highlights this really marvelous architecture in a way that is subtle but yet commanding of the location to where it sits and will really focus on the significant structure. So very well done. I appreciate the white lining. I really appreciate the -- getting rid of the colored suggestion. I think that was wise to ditch that. So thank you. Thank you. I think it is a beautiful, and I wish you the very best in getting the funding together so that you can implement as soon as possible. It will only highlight the Columbus Plaza Fountain project, which is going great, gangbusters. So, thank you.
MR. CARR: Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo? Commissioner Argo, I think you're muted.
COMMISSIONER ARGO: Oh, how about that? There we go. I'd like to associate my -- myself with Commissioner Stidham's comments right before me. I really appreciate this. This is exciting
to see it move forward. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Argo. Vice Chairman Levenbach?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Well, thanks for the presentation. I really can't embellish on the prior two comments. I think it's going to be a great project, and I hope it can be brought to completion soon.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Is Commissioner Blair with us? I don't see him, so we'll proceed to Commissioner Ingrassia.
COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Thank you. Yeah, I want to just echo the comments from my other commissioners on the panel. Union Station is of course one of the crown jewels in I think the DC architecture portfolio right alongside the Capitol building, The White House, and I think this lighting project really brings out key features that have long been perhaps not quite accentuated in the way that this project will highlight. So I really appreciate this, and I
wish everyone the best of luck. CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of comments. One is my refrain. First of all, I don't want to impede or affect the eloquence of the project, but I got to ask whether or not the solar or solar using any solar services. You spoke consistently about the energy savings, energy, energy, but the solar would help us a lot in time and particularly with the expanse of the tracks and more overhead. Any solar we can get in, you know, it's like free energy being given to us. We can capture it, store it and use it. So I wonder whether that has been considered or is it possible at this time without impeding or affecting the eloquence of the project.
MR. CARR: Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. That is slated for review and study as part of the broader expansion project. We would agree with you. We have tremendous amount of roof area, and that is something that will be evaluated in future
project scopes.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Thank you very much.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. Commissioner Cash -- is Commissioner Cash with us?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: He is not.
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay, then we'll proceed with Commissioner Henderson.
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: I would just say that I think this project is sorely needed, and it is good to see it moving forward. I actually, you probably can't see it behind me, but Union Station is just behind me in that window, and so I can see it every day and I -- one, this is really going to enhance the facility and make it truly nice to look at. But the safety aspect of it cannot be stressed enough too, and how that is going to improve things on the ground. So I think it's -- this can't come soon enough.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Henderson. Commissioner McGowan.
COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: Thank you all so
much for the presentation. I don't have any additional comments at this time, but thank you all so much for your time and the presentation.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner McGowan. Yeah, I figured we would get some positive comments from our friends over on the Hill given the proximity of the project to their stomping ground. Speaking for myself, I just want to say a few things. First of all, I think we've seen -- I was very excited about this project when it first came before our commission. I'm even more excited about it now. I think the addition of lighting to the barrel vault is -- is a -- a huge improvement on what was already a great plan. As I said when this came before us, I believe it was for concept. I think the care that's been given to preserving historic light fixtures, or at least the character of historic light fixtures in the area around Union Station is really quite remarkable. I think both from a safety perspective, a beautification perspective, really however you look at it, this project is an absolute
win. And I would echo the comments that Commissioner Stidham had earlier that I just hope the project team can get in and get this done quickly.
I am obviously fully supportive of this project, and I'm really excited to see Union Station, which, as Commissioner Ingrassia said, is really one of the crown jewels of the federal property portfolio here --really see Union Station beautified in this way and elevated certainly in a way that will allow its architectural features to really shine through in a beautiful new lighting. With that, are there any other further questions or comments from any commissioners present? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, could you please confirm the motion and the second and then take the vote by roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Cozart.
COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Schaefer.
COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham. COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo. COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes.
| MS. | HOTTEL-COX: | Vice | Chairman |
| Levenbach. | |||
| VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: | Yes. |
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf. CHAIR SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia. COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon. COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner McGowan. COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Motion passes.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, GLEN ECHO MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Madam
Secretary. Next on the agenda, we have agenda item 6B, which is a request to approve comments on the draft Glen Echo Management Plan amendment. And I believe we have Stephanie Free to present on this project.
MS. FREE: Yes. Can you see me and hear me?
CHAIR SCHARF: I can see and hear you loud and clear.
MS. FREE: Great. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Scharf and Commissioners. The National Park Service requests comments on the draft Glen Echo Park Management Plan, or master plan amendment for Glen Echo Park located in Montgomery County, Maryland. The commission provided comments on the conceptual master plan in February of 2025. Since then, NPS has developed a draft environmental assessment and master plan, which we are commenting on today.
It is anticipated that the final master plan and finding of no significant impact will be submitted later this spring or early summer for
our review. As I mentioned, today we are looking at the park's draft master plan. At the draft review stage, the commission should be focused on issues such as programmatic needs and proposed uses, site circulation and linkages to surrounding context, historic and environmental influences and issues, prominent views and viewsheds, and if the master plan creates any off-site impacts.
Before I discuss the draft master plan, I'll begin with an overview of the site context and some existing conditions for orientation. The
0.9 acre park is located adjacent to the Clara Barton National Historic Site, northwest of the District along the Potomac River in Montgomery County, Maryland. The park has 13 resident arts and culture organizations located on the campus and sees approximately 350,000 visitors annually. The site is home to 30 buildings of varying ages, styles, paths, and picnic areas.
This plan shows the arrangement of the existing structures including an arcade, former pool, dance hall, carousel, yurts, and the bumper
car pavilion, all of which are currently utilized as facilities for art and culture programming, including art studios and classes, children's art and play spaces, performance space, and dance halls. Here we have a closer look at the site's master plan boundary. For purposes of this graphic and throughout the presentation, the plan is rotated with north pointing to the upper left.
The Minnehaha Creek separates Glen Echo Park from the Clara Barton Historic Site, where visitor parking is shared between the two facilities and accessed via a footbridge. Most visitors arrive to the park by car where they can park during operating hours at the shared lot or in an existing lot along MacArthur Boulevard on the weekends. The park is also serviced by the county ride-on bus route 29, whose stop is located near the north end of the site along MacArthur Boulevard. Glen Echo Park is a National Register National Historic District. Several character-defining contributing resources include the original park entrance, the arcade building, the
Chautauqua Tower and Yellow Barn, the Crystal Pool Pavilion, Spanish Ballroom, Bumper Car Pavilion, the Picnic Grove, the Crystal Pool entry facade, and the carousel, as seen in the images here. There are several arrival viewsheds on axis with the centrally located carousel that welcome visitors to the park from the parking overlook, the primary pedestrian entrance path, and the original Glen Echo Park entrance portal.
In addition to cultural resources, there are also important natural resources within the plan boundary, including the Minnehaha Creek and woodland, which, I mentioned, separates Glen Echo Park from the Clara Barton National Historic Site.
And now I will review the draft master plan in this next section of the presentation. So while the site is relatively small, it is very popular for cultural activities, and all existing facilities are fully utilized, leaving no unused building space that allows for additional public programming.
It is also an important historic
facility, and the master plan will help NPS and the other users balance increasing demands, historic preservation, and future needs. As I mentioned earlier, the commission provided comments on the concept master plan in February 2025, which included two alternatives with different areas for buildable zones where building development or outdoor hardscape improvements may be appropriate.
NPS selected to advance alternative 2, which restores some of the centralized development that existed historically when the park functioned as a -- as an amusement park and includes an additional pedestrian connection across the Minnehaha Creek and woodland between the park and the shared parking lot. Overall, staff supports advancing alternative 2 in the draft master plan as it will enhance the visitor experience through improved site access and circulation, limits demolition to non-contributing features, and identifies development in strategic locations that respects the views of the park's unique features.
Here we have a closer look at the preferred alternative. The blue zones on the map suggest the area may be developed with a one-totwo-story building, and the green zones may include exterior landscape and hardscape improvements. The buildable zones do not include building footprints, square footages, and massing. Additional design development will follow completion of the master plan to determine these elements. Therefore, staff recommends that NPS consider programming and building space needs holistically during the design phase rather than individually by project so that anticipated increases to visitor traffic -- to visitors, traffic, and parking demand can be addressed at the appropriate phase of development.
And overall, staff finds the demolition of the existing yurts, pottery kiln, and restroom facility located at the center of the park and replacement with a one to two-story building will provide needed program space and help frame the arrival viewsheds to the center of the park and
historic carousel. And here we have some views of the areas identified as buildable zones in the draft master plan.
Overall, staff supports utilizing these previously disturbed areas for potential future development, which will result in fewer impacts on historic and cultural resources. The draft master plan includes a high level analysis of impacts to
| these | resources | and | other | topics | such | as |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| vegetation, | transportation, | and | parking, | as | ||
| previously | requested | by | the | commission. |
Additional analysis and mitigation measures will be provided during the design phase when program is better defined, which will influence building footprints and visitor and parking demand.
One feature I would like to highlight is the Crystal Pool complex. Constructed in 1931, the pool remained a central feature of Glen Echo Park through the mid-20th century until its partial demolition in the early 1980s due to deterioration and funding limitations. At the time of its completion, it was the largest public
swimming pool in the Washington, D.C. area and served as a major recreational attraction for several decades.
The draft master plan indicates this buildable zone would be treated to accommodate a subsurface building within the existing below-grade cavity with exterior hardscaping and outdoor programming space at the grade level that references the historic level changes and spatial organization of the site. And staff finds the proposed creative reuse of the Crystal Pool for hardscape outdoor program space is a unique opportunity for visitors to experience this historic feature and will be a valuable addition to the park's program and landscape.
Staff also finds the original Glen Echo Park entrance portal and the adjacent Chautauqua Tower, Yellow Barn, and the trolley right-of-way are unique features that contribute to the park's character and cultural significance. The entrance was established for the --for the 1891 Chautauqua, demarcated with the preserved stone
tower that remains in use today as an artist's studio. When the site transitioned to an amusement park in 1899, the entrance served as a terminus for the Georgetown trolley line, and the Art Deco signage was added in 1940. A reproduction of the original entry portal's 1940 sign and entrance structure was completed in the early 2000s, as seen here in the top images. The original entrance portal today is considered a secondary entrance to the park as visitors primarily park on the west side of the site in the shared lot. However, the original entrance portal serves the visitors from the MacArthur Boulevard Trail and permitted employees and weekend visitors who park in the north lot. The area surrounding the original entrance portal and adjacent features is a narrow cartway abutted by a sloped landscape buffer. The cartway consists of concrete and asphalt paving and is used for service and drop-off with handicapped parking and limited permit parking. Overall, staff finds the surface parking, disjointed paving materials, and limited
space for pedestrians in this area detract from the quality of the visitor experience and the historic significance of the site and therefore recommends the master plan include this area as a suggested exterior space buildable zone with enhancements that would support seasonal public events, enhance the visitor experience, and celebrate the park's unique history. And lastly, the draft master plan also includes stormwater management and accessibility improvements to reduce localized flooding and improve connectivity throughout the park by meeting ABA standards.
To further support connectivity and the plan's goal of better serving the regional population, staff recommends the applicant continue coordinating with the local transportation agencies as building zones are further designed and future programming is identified regarding potential improvements to physical connections between the park, bus, and bikeway facilities along MacArthur Boulevard, and public transportation operating hours to better
align with park programs.
So in summary, staff recommends the commission approve the comments on the draft master plan to the -- for Glen Echo Park, which have been incorporated into my presentation. I would now like to introduce Maureen Joseph, Resource Management Division Manager with the George Washington Memorial Parkway, who is online and would like to make a few remarks. Thank you.
MS. JOSEPH: All right, good morning, everybody. Hopefully my audio is working. I am Maureen Joseph, Resource Management Division Manager for the George Washington Memorial Parkway. I'm also joined by Christine Bruins. She's the Planning Portfolio Manager for the National Capital Region of the National Park Service. As presented by NCPC staff Stephanie Free, our preferred alternative for the Glen Echo Park Management Plan Amendment is now open for public comment until March 16th.
Glen Echo Park, revitalized through a successful partnership since 2002, has been
transformed from disrepair into a prominent venue for arts, culture, and special events. Due to its success, current facilities are at or near capacity. This amendment seeks to expand program and event capacity, enhance interpretation of the park's history and environment, and maintain and protect the historic character and resources of this unique NPS site. We welcome your feedback and questions. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Stephanie and Maureen. Do any commissioners have questions either for our staff or for the project team?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR SCHARF: Yes, Commissioner Dixon. I know what's coming.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: As is my practice, I will move that we adopt this for consideration and deliberation and final action.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Second.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. With that, we have a motion on the floor. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Second.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Stidham. With that, I'll open it to the commission for discussion, and I'll start deliberations with Commissioner Stidham.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Great. Thank you, and thank you to the NCPC staff for their presentation. As you can see, this is a high level sort of general management plan that really gives us framework for moving forward. So we appreciate the recommendations and the comments of commission staff and look forward to moving forward with the project.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Argo.
COMMISSIONER ARGO: I have no additional comments except to say this is so exciting. It's one of the first places when I moved to Washington, like, 40 years ago that I brought my daughter, and it's so, it's just lovely to see the attention being paid to bringing it back to -- you know, to its elegant former self. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Argo. Vice Chairman Levenbach.
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Well, thanks for the presentation. I've also taken the family there a number of times. It's a special place, and there's always interesting things going on at the park. So I appreciate the effort that's been put into this plan. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Commissioner Blair -- I don't think is with us, so Commissioner Ingrassia.
COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Thank you for the presentation. I'd like to, again, associate with my other fellow commissioners on the panel. I think it's great that we're revitalizing a key piece of Americana. This park has been around for over 100 years, and, you know, the fact that we're able to get it back to its former, you know, grand presentation with all its historic value, I think, is a really phenomenal achievement. And I just want to echo, you know, my fellow commissioners and wish you all the best in this project.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Ingrassia. Commissioner Dixon.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: No comment.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. Commissioner Cash.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Not present.
CHAIR SCHARF: Not present. I apologize, Commissioner Henderson.
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Nothing to add.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner McGowan.
COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: I don't have any additional comments, but thank you for the presentation.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner McGowan. Commissioner Cozart.
COMMISSIONER COZART: Just want to commend the Park Service on really strong progress on an important project and thank the staff for the presentation. No additional comments.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Cozart. Commissioner Schaefer.
COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER: I thank you. Great presentation. I have nothing else to ask or add. Thank you so much.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Schafer. I'm actually speaking for myself. I'm really excited about this project. Glen Echo Park has a fascinating history. It is, I believe, the subject of the seminal Supreme Court case, Griffin
v. Maryland, which was a key 14th Amendment equal protection case in sort of the desegregation era. That was, like, my previous experience with Glen Echo Park. I've never actually been there myself. But looking at the plan, looking at sort of what we have in front of us, I think it's really exciting that a historical resource like this is being -- is being looked at, that -- that a -- a real plan for improvement and hopefully restoring it to -- to past glory is in the works.
As always, I'd like to thank our staff and Stephanie, in particular, for their traditional care and attention to the projects coming before us. And I'd also like to thank the
applicant team for, obviously, first of all, taking an interest in this property and, second, coming up with a, at least a, the beginnings of a plan that I think are really exciting and can revive a key regional resource. So with that, if there are no further questions or comments from the commission, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and second and then take a vote by roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Cozart.
COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Schafer. COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham. COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo. COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes.
| MS. | HOTTEL-COX: | Vice | Chairman |
| Levenbach. | |||
| VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: | Yes. |
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf. CHAIR SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia. COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon. COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner McGowan. COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Motion carries.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OLNEY SUPPORT CENTER AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary. With that, I believe we're moving on to agenda item 6C, which is a request to approve comments on the draft Olney Support Center Area Development Plan. And from our team, we have Jamie Herr presenting.
MS. HERR: Yes, good morning. CHAIR SCHARF: Hey, Jamie.
MS. HERR: All right. Can you see the screen?
CHAIR SCHARF: Yeah.
MS. HERR: Great. Good morning, Chair Scharf and Commissioners. The US Department of the Navy has submitted the draft master plan for the Olney Support Center as part of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division for commission comment. The site has a long history of government use, starting in 1955 with its development as a launch site for the Nike Missile Program. After it was decommissioned, the site was used by several government agencies, with the most recent tenant being FEMA.
In 2019, the General Services Administration transferred the site to the Navy to become the Olney support division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock. The Navy initiated the master planning process in 2023, with the first public release draft completed in 2024. The applicant is seeking the Commission's comments on the first draft master plan for the
site, and staff recommends the Commission commend the United States Department of the Navy for initiating the master plan process for this newly acquired site.
As noted, today we are looking at the draft master plan. At this stage, the Commission should be focused on issues such as programmatic needs and proposed uses, site circulation and linkages to the surrounding context, historic and environmental influences and issues, if applicable, prominent views and viewsheds, and if the master plan creates any off-site impacts.
The site is located in Montgomery County, Maryland. It is surrounded by farms, rural businesses, and large-lot single family homes. As previously noted, the site has a long history of federal use starting in the 1950s. The most recent federal agency to occupy the site prior to the Navy was the FEMA Alternate Operations Center, part of the U.S. National Warning System and the FEMA National Radio System.
There are only a handful of buildings
remaining on the site from previous uses as noted here. Other previous government tenants and users included the Centers for Disease Control, National Archives, the Secret Service, Executive Office of the President, and the State Department.
The existing site is 80 acres consisting mostly of open fields with tree stands at the perimeter and along the stream corridor at the eastern edge. The stream is a tributary of the Patuxent River and has water quality restrictions. The state has provided the applicant with guidance on how to properly develop the site without negatively impacting the stream corridor.
Upon entry into the restricted area, the road forks. To the east, the road provides access to a loading dock, the wastewater treatment plant, storage and laydown areas, and a chilled water plant. To the north, the road provides access to a vehicle maintenance shop, the helicopter pad, Building 1, and the main parking lot. A dirt road encircles the area outside of the restricted fence and most of the installation perimeter, except
along the eastern boundary where the dirt road travels along the edge of the wooded area.
To determine the developable areas of the site, the applicant analyzed the constraints available. As you can see in the map enlargement, the area around the existing site is either least constrained or partially constrained, the small strips showing as most constrained surrounding the existing site are berms and steep slopes built up around the installation.
The applicant developed a vision for the Olney Site and a set of project goals to guide development. The vision and goals focus on a site that supports the mission at Carderock in a flexible and adaptable way with future opportunities, reduces redundancy, and maintains resource stewardship, community relations, and employee quality of life. As I noted, this site has been in federal use for many decades, but this is the first master plan, and staff recommends the commission approves the following comments on the draft area development plan for the Olney Support
Center as part of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carderock Division.
Based on the developable areas analysis and the goals for the site, the applicant team created three courses of action, or COAs. During development of the COAs, stakeholder preference was for compact development near existing facilities to benefit from shared parking, minimal infrastructure investment, and creating an efficient, walkable site. During the early planning process, stakeholders decided COA development would not include a full build-out scenario. COA 1, shown here, is referred to as the Known Requirements COA and includes the new project P-353 Battery Testing Facility, a temporary accelerated corrosion control facility, a new water line, expanded security perimeter, and a new access road.
COA 2 is referred to as Moderate Development and includes two additional development parcels for future projects in addition to the projects included in COA 1. The
sites are located close to existing development to assure a compact and efficient layout. No additional projects are identified currently for these two sites.
The final COA is COA 3, which was described as Aggressive Development and includes all the projects from COAs 1 and 2, with additional projects necessary to meet the expanded capacity. These additional items include additional development parcels for a total of six, including the battery testing site, a permanent storage facility, a new loop road, a second entry control point, truck inspection station, and expanded wastewater treatment facility.
Stakeholders for the project selected COA 1 to serve as the basis for the preferred alternative. Given the research and testing nature of the mission, participants saw the most value in COA 1, as it represents the most realistic option for known requirements and meets the established goals and objectives. This alternative does outline the potential for future
development, as indicated by the future development parcel outlines. The layout of the Preferred Alternative is similar to COA 1, but the battery testing building has shifted southeast. And as such, staff recommends the commission supports as the design focuses new development at the southern end of the site near the entrance and avoiding sprawling development with larger footprints in areas that are heavily wooded, near the stream, or further away from the entrance, the reuse of existing parking and facilities to support the new development, and the addition of new pedestrian paths to access the development.
The draft master plan compared the current and future land use on the site. As you can see, the future development sites increases the land use, expanding it in an arc around the current facility. However, other than the battery testing facility, no other projects are identified for the site. While the master plan states the site will comply with local stormwater management requirements for the increase in land use, staff
recommends the final master plan include an areawide stormwater management approach with low impact development techniques that can be incorporated into future projects. The Olney Support Center currently has 121 total spaces for use by employees. Per NCPC's parking guidance and the federal elements of the Comprehensive Plan, Olney should follow a 1-to-2 parking ratio, meaning for every parking space, there should be two employees. The anticipated employee count over the next five years is 125 employees, which is approximately a 1-to-1 parking ratio. As the site is not near any transit options and does not have sufficient employees for car or van pooling, the applicant is recommending no new parking for the battery testing facility and to implement transportation demand management strategies such as car or van pooling in the future as the site reaches a higher employment level. As such, staff recommends the commission support the applicant's transportation strategy to reuse existing parking spaces for new buildings and implement
transportation demand management strategies when on-site employment renders it feasible as outlined in the transportation management plan.
The applicant has also included design guidance for future buildings on the site in accordance with Navy and DoD guidance. Three of these buildings are included here as examples. The applicant has also included design guidance for future roadways on the site in accordance with Navy and DoD standards. While some of the roadway guidance indicates tree plantings, some do not, and staff encourages the applicant to consider identifying future tree planting areas around the site that can help provide additional screening and shade such as along driveways and around future buildings. As noted previously, the preferred plan is based on CO-1 and includes a new battery testing facility to support Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division missions. In support of this new facility, the plan also includes a new waterline, new access roadway, and expanded secure perimeter. Finally, the plan
includes potential future sites for additional development should the programming need arise. The applicant has coordinated with a variety of state and local stakeholders, but as they continue to revise the master plan, staff recommends the applicant consider the comments received in the preparation of the final master plan and continue to work with applicable stakeholders such as Montgomery County as the master plan is finalized. In conclusion, staff again recommends the commission approves the comments on the draft area development plan for the Olney Support Center as part of the Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock Division. I included the recommendations in the presentation, but they're also here for your reference. That concludes my presentation. Members of the applicant team are here and available for any questions that the -- from the commission. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you very much, Jamie. Do any Commissioners have any questions for Jamie or, I guess, for the applicant team
that's present as well?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: I do, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR SCHARF: I'm sorry, I can't see who that is.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Oh, sorry. It's Commissioner Stidham.
CHAIR SCHARF: Oh, hey. Sorry, Commissioner Stidham.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: No worries. So it's either for Jamie or the applicant. I just had one question, and it's on the slide related to the preferred alternative. In our packet, it's slide 11, but I'm not sure if it -- which slide it is for your presentation.
MS. HERR: Yeah. Let me bring that up right now.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Thanks.
MS. HERR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR SCHARF: Yes, Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I was a little
slow on my draw, and I may need to be advised by our GSAC, general counsel and secretary, off record here, whether or not my position is valid. In my experience, normally you need to have a matter before the body before you can deliberate, discuss, and talk about it. So you create a front end that says we're going to move to adopt this with further action and whatever, but we don't have anything before us to discuss unless we make a motion. So maybe I'm wrong, but at this point, I'm going to make the motion that we at least have this before us for discussion and deliberation.
CHAIR SCHARF: So I think typically we give commissioners the opportunity to ask questions of the presenters before we formally begin to deliberate as a commission. That having been said, I think your way provides some expedition to the process while still allowing commissioners to comment. So if you'd like to make your customary motion, Commissioner Dixon -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I -
CHAIR SCHARF: -- and we can -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: -- I would make that motion and also would like, maybe we can revisit this. We got a lot of things important before us. But every, all discussion and deliberation, I think, should be part of the record that's created for an item that's before us. So even -
CHAIR SCHARF: Sure.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: -- question or this or that or the other, it's related to the action we're taking, and it should be, I think, framed by the adoption, the consideration to adopt and discuss. But I so move, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay. We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? And then, sorry, that -
COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: I second the motion.
CHAIR SCHARF: That motion is to approve comments on the draft Olney Support
Center Area Development Plan. I think I heard a second there.
COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes, I second it.
CHAIR SCHARF: Commissioner Ingrassia seconds. With that, I'll open it up to the commission for discussion. I guess Commissioner Stidham was asking a question, or do you want to -- do you want to start? We'll start out of order, I guess. Tammy, did you want to continue?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes. I can ask my question and move on just to be efficient in our day today. So Ms. Herr, here's my question on this preferred alternative. So if I understand correctly, the Course of Action 1 is the preferred alternative, which is a really compact limited development focused around the areas where there's already existing development. But on this particular graphic, it shows these potential parcels outlined.
So is it my understanding that they
would move forward with the preferred alternative, but they have identified where they might do amendments to this master plan in the future and where these development areas may be in the future?
MS. HERR: I think I understand your question, and I think the answer is yes.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Okay. It was just confusing to me to show like what they're going to move forward to now and then sort of forecasting where they would go in the future. So I was just trying to get some clarity on what they think their Course of Action 1 preferred alternative would be.
MS. HERR: Yeah. I think the goal was they know what they need now with the battery testing facility, but they wanted to look out into the future. Because the Carderock site is so built out, they do anticipate long, long term probably some needs at this site in the future. But not knowing what those are, they wanted to at least outline the space, trying to keep that
as compact as possible moving forward. And if something changes, they would have to come back to us.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Okay. That makes great sense. Thank you. And Chairman, I can go forward with discussion items if you want or unless there are other questions.
CHAIR SCHARF: Let me just go in order here, if that's okay, Commissioner Stidham. I think Commissioner Schaefer is up first for deliberations on this item.
COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER: I have absolutely no questions. I think this is a really good job, and I think it's going to help support as this moves forward. So great job. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Schaefer. Now Commissioner Stidham.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Thank you. First of all, I think that this is a really thoughtful approach to a master plan for a facility. I appreciate that they are focusing
new development around areas that are already developed and not trying to lay out the entire site, but thinking about the buffer that is needed around these facilities, what they currently need. And, you know, to my question about those future parcels, also identifying a very compact development that limits it really adjacent. So I really appreciate that and look forward to hearing more about the project.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Stidham. Commissioner Argo. I think you're muted again, Commissioner Argo. I'm very sorry.
COMMISSIONER ARGO: There we go. I'm sorry. I don't have any additional questions. Thank you. Appreciate the presentation.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Argo. Vice Chairman Levenbach.
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Well, as someone who lives in Gaithersburg, Maryland, this isn't too far away. Certainly, I appreciate the challenges in getting to the facility. I mean, I think that comes through in the staff comments
that it's not an area that's really, you know, at this point at least can accommodate a lot of traffic, and there's a lot of use, including some bicyclists as well. So I appreciate the thought that went into that and look forward to seeing how this develops.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. I think Commissioner Blair's not with us. Commissioner Ingrassia.
COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Thank you. Yeah, I don't have any additional comments or questions, but I really appreciate a thoughtful presentation.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Ingrassia. Commissioner Dixon.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I think it's a very important project and facility because batteries are becoming a major concern. They're heating up, getting hot, on -- whatever, whatever. So I'm assuming this testing will help us get further into more efficient and better ways of using batteries, et cetera, et
cetera. So that's great.
I do have one question, though. I'm not sure of the geography of where we locate it. Where is this actually? Help me out a little bit if you can. Just tell me kind of where this is located in Maryland exactly -- kind of.
MS. HERR: So this is located northwest of Olney. I think the closest town is actually Laytonsville.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Okay. All right, thank you very much.
MS. HERR: Mm-hmm.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. Commissioner Cash -- I think Commissioner Cash may not be with us. So Commissioner Henderson.
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Nothing. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Henderson. Commissioner McGowan.
COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: I don't have any additional comments at this time, but thank you
all for the presentation.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner McGowan. Commissioner Cozart.
COMMISSIONER COZART: Appreciate the presentation and no additional comments or questions.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Speaking for myself, I'd like to, of course, compliment our staff on their care and dedication to their review of this project and also commend the US Navy for what they're planning here. I'd echo what Commissioner Dixon said, which is that the sorts of functions that are contemplated are very important. And I think this is going to be an exciting project to see develop going forward.
As always, I would recommend that DOD - or DOW, I should say, continues working closely with our staff to ensure that, as this project moves ahead, that it is as well-articulated and as effective as possible. And with that, are there any other -- any further
questions or comments from any commissioners before we proceed to a vote? Hearing and seeing none, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and the second, and then take a vote by roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Ingrassia. Commissioner Cozart.
COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Schaefer. COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham. COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo. COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman
Levenbach. VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf. CHAIR SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Ingrassia.
COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson.
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner McGowan.
COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion passes.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary. With that, we're going to take a recess before we take up a consideration of agenda item 6D, which is the East Wing Modernization Project. We're going to reconvene at 1:00 p.m. as we previously discussed. I hope everybody fortifies themself with a good lunch in the interim, and we'll see you all back in a couple hours, unless -
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you, and Commissioners, just remember to use the second Zoom link for this afternoon's session if you need that. If you haven't found it, feel free
to let us know, and we'll make sure you have that.
CHAIR SCHARF: Perfect. Thank you, Meghan, and we will see you all shortly.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 11:10 a.m. and resumed at
1:00 p.m.) MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf, we
can begin the meeting.
WHITE HOUSE EAST WING
MODERNIZATION PROJECT
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you very much. Welcome back everyone. It is now 1:00 p.m. on the button, and the National Capital Planning Commission is reconvening our March 5th, 2026 meeting as planned and scheduled. Before we get started, Madam Secretary, can you please take the roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes, Commissioner
Cozart. COMMISSIONER COZART: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Schaefer.
COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham. COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo. COMMISSIONER ARGO: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman
Levenbach. Chairman Scharf. CHAIR SCHARF: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair.
Commissioner Ingrassia. COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon.
Commissioner Dixon? Come back. He may be having audio issues. Commissioner Mendelson. Commissioner Henderson.
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner McGowan. COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Marcel Acosta,
executive director, and Diane Sullivan, current planning division director, are also in the meeting, and with those present, Mr. Chairman,
we do have a quorum.
CHAIR SCHARF: Great. Thank you, Meghan. Noting the presence of a quorum, this meeting is now in session once again. Before we get started and proceed to agenda item 6D, I do want to note one thing. In our interim while we were off the air, I saw that the Washington Post is out with an article. The Post's article is just incorrect in its facts. If they'd reached out to me personally, I would have corrected them, but they didn't.
The Post indicates that we delayed consideration of the ballroom, or we delayed our final vote on the ballroom owing to unexpected public comments or something of that nature. That's simply incorrect. Our plan has been to proceed to a final vote on this project on April 2nd for quite some time. Part of the reason we scheduled things that way was because we anticipated public comment on this project, and that's totally normal and proper. It's the way that this Commission has dealt with similar
projects before.
But for the Post to say that the vote was supposed to be today, or that the vote was scheduled for today but was delayed until April is simply incorrect, and I wanted to note that for the record before we proceed.
That having been said, we can now move on to agenda item 6D which is a request to approve preliminary and final site and building plans for the East Wing Modernization Project. As is customary, NCPC staff will begin with the presentation and then I believe we also have Shalom Baranes, the architect on this project, with us as well. I think, Matt, are you the one who's presenting this one?
MR. FLIS: That's correct.
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay. Matt, if you want to proceed, let's roll.
MR. FLIS: Okay, great. Okay, I hope you can see the presentation and hear me.
CHAIR SCHARF: Loud and clear.
MR. FLIS: Okay, great. Good
afternoon, members of the Commission. The Executive Residence at the White House has submitted preliminary and final site and building plans for the proposed East Wing Modernization Project, which is going to be located on the grounds of the White House.
You'll recall that you last heard an information presentation on this project back in January of this year. The purpose of the project is to establish a permanent secure event space within the White House grounds that provides increased capacity for official state functions.
So I think everybody's familiar with the location of the White House, but just for your reference, here is a map view showing President's Park and the surrounding context with the National Mall located at the bottom of the screen. The project is proposed to be located between the Executive Mansion and the Treasury Building, marked here with the yellow star.
So in terms of the overview for today, I'm going to start with a little bit of history of the site, walk through the project background, then provide an overview of the design, walk through the analysis, and conclude with a summary of the recommendations.
So, starting with history of the site, of course, I think everybody is familiar with the iconic Executive Mansion. This is what most people think of when you mention the White House shown here on the screen. But it is important to note that over the years, U.S. presidents have renovated, expanded, and modernized the White House and its grounds.
Here are just a few images showing the property as it has changed over time, with President's Park here on the left, and then an example of varying additions to the grounds with some greenhouses shown here on the right.
There've been more substantial changes, obviously, like the addition of the West Wing or even the reconstruction of the mansion by
President Truman. Even the East Wing went through several iterations, the most recent version of which dated to 1942 and was demolished in 2025. As a reminder, the commission does not have review authority over demolitions.
So moving on to the proposed project, the comprehensive design plan for the White House and President's Park, which was prepared in 2000, identified the need for expanded event space to address growing visitor demand and provide a venue suitable for significant events.
To meet this need, as part of the current project, the applicant outlined three functional goals for any permanent event space. This included immediate adjacency to the White House Executive Mansion, a direct ceremonial procession from the East Room into the venue, and an enclosed second story access from the Executive Mansion.
The intent is to create a permanent secure event space within the White House
grounds that provides increased capacity for official state functions, eliminates reliance on temporary tents, temporary support facilities, and the infrastructure strains that are associated with them.
According to the applicant, the White House cannot host large events without resorting to the installation of large, unsightly tents, which impact the cultural landscape and the architectural integrity of the area. These installations impact the infrastructure and landscaping while diminishing the overall visitor experience.
As noted by the application, the design team evaluated various sizes and configurations for the project. The environmental assessment prepared by the National Park Service also notes that multiple locations, layouts, and design concepts were considered. Ultimately, because these alternatives did not meet the purpose and need identified by the applicant, they were dismissed from further study.
So moving on to the project design. The project area is generally, again, east of the Executive Mansion, west of East Executive Drive, south of Pennsylvania Avenue, and north of Hamilton Place. The main ballroom is connected to the mansion by a new colonnade. And here's a more detailed site plan with the project footprint in gray. The program, again, includes a ballroom of approximately 22,000 square feet designed to accommodate approximately 1,000 seated guests.
The total area of the two above-ground visible floors, including the new colonnade and ballroom, is around 89,000 square feet. The program includes event space as well as related uses like a commercial kitchen, office suite for the First Lady, and a replacement movie theater.
So here are the site elevations from the north and the south with the context including the Executive Mansion in the center and the adjacent buildings, including the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the
Main Treasury Building. As I mentioned, a colonnade connects the mansion to the new ballroom. It is lower in height to provide a sense of hierarchy and separation from the residence. As you can see, the context includes a variety of scales and heights and building styles with the Executive Mansion as its central focal point. Importantly, the project will not exceed the height of the mansion, which is approximately 60 feet.
So, moving on to the analysis, I think you're aware that the Commission has reviewed a number of projects at the White House and vicinity, including the White House fence in 2016 and 2017, as shown here. And NCPC has also worked on initiatives like the redesign of the portion of Pennsylvania Avenue immediately north of the grounds in the early 2000s.
In these cases, the Commission evaluates projects at the White House and vicinity in terms of the impact on visitor experience from the surrounding public spaces.
Comprehensive Plan policies related to urban design, visitors, parks and open space, and historic preservation are also considered. I will note, however, that the White House and grounds are exempt from the National Historic Preservation Act, and therefore, the Section 106 process does not apply.
So why is the focus on visitor experience important? Well, it establishes how we think about the visual frame within which the White House sits and which is called out in the Comprehensive Plan. The points from where the public can generally view the complex are typically -- are generally along and outside this dashed line.
This includes Pennsylvania Avenue to the north, 17th Street, 15th Street, and E Street to the south. From here, the public can see the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, the Treasury Building, and views to the north and south of the Executive Mansion.
Much of the rest of the campus is
heavily screened or set back from the surrounding streets. Given this, staff grounded the analysis in terms of understanding what the visitor will see as they approach the White House complex within public space. Key viewsheds are, again, primarily from Pennsylvania Avenue to the north, as shown here, and E Street to the south, as shown here. You'll notice in these and other images how intentional landscape is in framing these views.
Staff evaluated the submission materials to understand how these views will be seen by pedestrians at ground level. I'll note that bird's eye perspectives and renderings from the air while -- and renderings also from inside the fence line, while helpful in understanding the project, are generally not views of the project the public will see or experience.
Staff used existing conditions for evaluating the proposal and the context which includes the White House and grounds, President's Park and the adjacent buildings.
Again, the Executive Mansion is that central, iconic and most recognizable part of the White House complex. It exists as a pavilion within a context of a number of other buildings.
These include the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which I mentioned, shown here to the west, along with the Treasury Building to the east. And these are large buildings with different heights and design styles, and as such, our analysis was grounded in this broader setting, which includes a variety of buildings of varying sizes sitting within the larger landscape of President's Park with the Executive Mansion at the center.
For staff, this was important in establishing the context in the visual frame. It was not just about the White House and the wings, but the broader area, a context which is already somewhat asymmetrical and varied. As such, we asked the applicant to prepare a viewshed study of the proposed project from pedestrian level locations and public space.
The applicant provided those views as part of their submission, which staff evaluated, and I'll walk you through some of those views in the next few slides.
So first, I'll start at the north at Pennsylvania Avenue looking south. These views, both the top and bottom, are similar with just a slightly different angle. The left side shows the project in the setting, and the right image is the exact same view, but with the project dashed in red, just so you can see it a little bit more clearly. You can see in both of these views that the mansion remains visually the most prominent element in the view.
I'll note in both of these images, the bike racks and the fact that, on this day, the public was set even further back from the White House due to security. Obviously, this impacts the visitor experience, and I'm going to talk a little bit more about this later in my presentation. And just for reference, here's a view with the trees leafed out.
These renderings were done in the wintertime, so it was helpful to see that kind of at a worst case scenario, but you can see here with the tree with the leaves on, the landscape really does strongly screen and frame the sight today. Again, this was very intentional, the landscape is part of that overall urban design approach to the complex.
So on the top here is another view looking southeast towards the project. Again, here you would see the addition and the colonnade, but the landscape and to some extent the topography do provide some screening. The mansion, again, retains its prominence. On the bottom, this is a view from further north in Lafayette Park. Here again, the project is generally not visible. It's off to the left of the primary view corridor, and the spatial frame of the mansion is retained.
As one moves further north into 16th Street, the view is also unaffected, primarily due to the existing landscape and then more so
the buildings which frame the corridor as you do move further to the north. So here it is on the south side of the grounds. This is a view looking from around E Street and the Ellipse. Again, here the images on the left and the right are the same, with just the building dashed in for reference.
In the top view, again here you see there's limited impacts to that critical view corridor. The landscape, even in the winter, still screens this view, and the Executive Mansion is still in that focal point. I'll note in this top image, again, you're seeing E Street with jersey walls and the White House fence beyond. Again, visitors are usually restricted to the south side of this line, so that your perspective actually includes the perimeter security, temporary elements before you even see the mansion in the distance.
The same is true, even more so true, as you move further south. This is from the Washington Monument grounds, or even further
away, which is the Jefferson Memorial looking towards the White House. Again, that key visual connection to the mansion is unaltered.
So now moving around to 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, views of the project would likely be possible from this location beyond the south facade of the Treasury Building. In this placement, the Sherman Memorial and the existing trees are in the foreground. They do provide some screening, but you would likely be able to see portions of the project in the distance. These views of the project would be even less perceptible as you start to move back down Pennsylvania Avenue further to the east.
And then of course, as you move to the US Capitol, this is the view looking down Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol steps. This viewshed would not be impacted as shown by these renderings. The sense of the corridor, that framing that's really provided by the buildings and the landscape is retained.
And I think it's important to mention,
particularly from 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, that that visual connection between the
U.S. Capitol and the White House was already lost with the construction of the Treasury Building in the middle of the 19th century. The portico of the Treasury Building actually projects out, so for many as you stand in Pennsylvania Avenue, what you're actually seeing is the Treasury Building.
The symbolic link, however, of that viewshed has been maintained, and as I've mentioned earlier, this is really about framing the entire corridor for the full length of Pennsylvania Avenue. So that is still protected. The symbolic connection would not be altered as part of this project. And so again, as I mentioned, while the view as you look past Sherman Park may change, the framing and the overall importance of that symbolic connection would not change.
And then finally, the applicant provided some additional views from other
locations around the White House complex. None of these views would be impacted by the project.
So NCPC staff acknowledges the scale of the project. We also note that the applicant has indicated that the program, and therefore the size, is necessary to meet their purpose and need. As such, given the context, including the surrounding buildings, the existing landscape, and the setbacks from publicly accessible spaces, the project is unlikely to change the main views of the Executive Mansion as the most recognized portion of the White House complex, particularly from the key locations to the north and the south where the public has views of the mansion today.
Therefore, staff finds that per the viewshed study provided in the submission, the public views of the East Wing modernization project will largely be screened by the existing landscape. We also find that per the study, the main views of the Executive Mansion from E Street to the south and Pennsylvania Avenue to
the north will be largely maintained.
Now, while the project will have limited, if filtered, visibility for visitors, I did want to briefly talk about the project design. Here are the north and south elevations with the landscape removed so you can see them a little bit more clearly. Again, this is in context with the Executive Mansion and the adjacent buildings.
The design has continued to evolve since the information presentation in January. In particular, after further consultation, the triangular pediment on the south facade was removed. We find this change successful, and we support the applicant's removal which results in a lower building height and a more unified architectural language. The updated design reduces that overall heaviness at the top of the building.
We do find that there might be an opportunity to continue to improve the rest of the portico. In particular, the density of
columns here on the south side appears to create a heavy and dark facade. So we advise that, if there is an opportunity, the applicant continue to refine the south portico design, including column placement and spacing to ensure an open, inviting area that also allows for improved natural light to the ballroom space, which is immediately beyond.
And as noted previously, the project includes a two-story colonnade that connects to the Executive Mansion. This component provides both a functional role, which is access to the ballroom and other program spaces, as well as a physical and visual one, providing that separation from the mansion and the bulk of the project. It is also the place where the project actually touches the mansion.
As the design advances, we suggest that if there is an opportunity, continue to refine the new colonnade design and detailing so that it remains related but architecturally deferential to the Executive Mansion, and to the
extent feasible, preserve and integrate elements of the historic facade where the new colonnade touches the mansion.
So moving on to the landscape, as part of the project, the applicant will restore some plant material as well as landscape elements retained from the East Garden. I'll note that the project will require a reconfiguration of a portion of South Lawn Drive. This change does disrupt the symmetry of the driveway. However, further alteration of the driveway loop to reestablish symmetry may impact additional trees and landscaping and therefore would not be preferred.
Here's an enlarged elevation of the East Garden, reflecting some of the elements that will be reinstalled as part of the project, including the holly trees, benches, Mount Vernon brick paving, and fountain. Additional plantings can help further reinforce key views and screen areas as appropriate. These plantings could also be reflective of the wide
variety of trees and flowering plants found across the country.
Therefore, we recommend the applicant continue to explore opportunities to further integrate additional vegetation and trees around the project and across the White House grounds as examples of the beauty of the American landscape.
Now moving on, as part of our review, NCPC staff visited the public streets around the White House and President's Park. Temporary perimeter security, including bicycle racks and snow fencing, are commonly used in this area. As I mentioned earlier, the submission materials also include several views that contain these temporary elements. In many ways, these are the most impactful parts of the setting to the visitor experience, as they are unattractive and confusing to navigate.
The Commission has reviewed several temporary security installations with the expectation that they would be time limited
until a permanent solution is implemented. However, to date, no permanent solution has been presented to NCPC. These elements add visual clutter and distract from the setting.
Thus, consistent with this guidance, upon completion of the East Wing project, the public realm in the vicinity of the White House should be improved to remove these temporary elements and provide a permanent, safe, and beautiful system. This will benefit both visitors to the White House and ballroom and the public at large, which experience these public spaces every day. Further, such enhancements would be consistent with the executive order, Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful.
Further, staff finds that the existing use of temporary security elements around the White House, particularly on Pennsylvania Avenue and E Street, continue to detract from the visitor experience and should be improved to help beautify President's Park once the
modernization project is completed.
A permanent plan for well-designed perimeter security will require coordination among a number of agencies to be successful. The applicant has indicated it will submit individual security projects, both temporary and permanent, throughout the White House complex and surrounding areas to the Commission in the future.
Understanding how all these projects work together to both beautify and protect the area will be important. As such, staff recommends the applicant work with the National Park Service, General Services Administration,
U.S. Secret Service, and others to brief the Commission on a comprehensive security and beautification plan for the White House complex, President's Park, and the vicinity that will replace temporary security measures with an attractive, unified, permanent design solution without further limiting public access.
So in conclusion, the Commission has
historically reviewed projects at the White House in terms of the impact on visitor experience. The viewshed study showed that while the project will still be visible in places, it will not impact the critical views of the Executive Mansion and its spatial frame. Overall, it's generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, staff has identified potential design refinements for consideration as the project continues to advance. More importantly, we continue to note that the visitor experience is more directly impacted by the ongoing use of temporary perimeter security, which could be improved and which has been highlighted in the recommendations.
Finally, I do want to acknowledge that NCPC has received a substantial number of public comments on this project. The vast majority of comments received were in opposition, and a high percentage raised objections to several components outside of NCPC's purview. For
example, many comments raised concerns about the demolition of the former East Wing and funding sources for the project. And while we note these, these are not issues that are germane to NCPC's review or the Commission's action.
The comments and opposition also address several themes that are relevant to NCPC's review. Some question the need for programmatic space. Others raise design issues like height, massing, compatibility in respect to the Executive Mansion. Solutions offered in some comments included reconstruction of the East Wing or a smaller modified ballroom. NCPC staff did consider these concerns in our review.
And then finally, we also did receive some comments in support, which have generally mentioned the programmatic need for permanent space and supported the architectural style.
Therefore, to conclude, staff recommends the Commission approve the preliminary and final site and building plans for the project with the comments that I have
already mentioned throughout the presentation. In addition, we recommend adopting the environmental assessment prepared by the National Park Service for the Commission's use.
I've already read through all the recommendations, so I'm not going to repeat them here, but they are available for your reference. I'll also mention that the Commission of Fine Arts approved the project on February 19th.
That concludes my presentation. I'm now going to turn it over to project architect Shalom Baranes, who will provide some remarks and then also introduce others from the design team who are available to answer any questions.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Matthew. That was comprehensive and very insightful. Thanks for your attention. And Shalom?
MR. BARANES: Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. I want to thank the Commission for allowing us to present again today. And I am going to primarily focus on the public experience walking around the White House
reservation. And then I'll focus on a couple of architectural changes we've made. And then our landscape architect, Rick Parisi, will conclude with a brief presentation as well.
So what I have here up on the screen is -- this is an animation. And we're standing on Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the Eisenhower Building. And you'll see as we start to run this, we are walking east along Pennsylvania Avenue. The main White House pavilion, the main residence, is coming into view here. And to the left, of course, you can see the ballroom.
And I will note, again, that in all of these animations, we've made the trees as transparent as we could. These buildings won't be quite as visible as is shown here. But I think this particular view -- we're just seeing the Treasury, Main Treasury now on the left. But in this particular view, I think you can see pretty clearly how the cornice height of our building, of the addition matches the cornice and balustrade of the White House.
So now we also have an additional view, a similar animation from the south along E Street here. And we are now walking westward, and the first thing you're seeing here is the ballroom structure. Again, we thinned out the leaves and the trees, made them transparent, and we are looking through the fence, and the White House is just beginning to appear.
This, of course, is the iconic view looking north. And now we are coming up just to the rear of the Eisenhower Building. Yeah, the Eisenhower Building is just off the frame to the left here.
Okay, if we could go to the next image. I have just a couple of images I want to show you to focus on a few of the changes that we've made. Matthew has already pointed out that we did remove the pediment which would have appeared on the far right-hand side of this drawing. But in addition to that change, we also changed this west elevation by adding one arched window. The one furthest to the left is
a new window, and we did that because we wanted to simplify the north part of this west elevation.
It originally was, when we showed it to you last time, a three-part composition, tripartite, and we've simplified that so it's just a two-part composition. You can see the bay here just to the right of the flag, and there's a slight recess there. And then the solid wall with the punched windows picks up and carries around the front, basically echoing the same punched window vocabulary that we see on the White House itself.
The other change we made here on this west elevation is to the windows along the lawn on the ground floor. We had a different set of windows there with different patterning. We've simplified this also so that basically it now matches the windows under the portico, which are just on the south side of the colonnade connecting the White House to the ballroom structure.
And if we go to the next one, this upper elevation has not changed except for the removal of the pediment on the left. It's this lower elevation that has changed, and I just wanted to show you this drawing because it more clearly, I think, shows the change at the northern end where we have the two-part composition with the recess in between the two solid panels.
If we go to the final, this is the final one. You're seeing the same thing, now the same corner here of the ballroom structure as seen from the Pennsylvania Avenue side. And I just wanted to show this to you to show that it does carry the language of the executive residence both on the north side of our ballroom and then that also wraps around the west side.
So with that, I'd like to have Rick Parisi continue here to address the landscaping a bit.
MR. PARISI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Rick Parisi here, MPFP,
landscape architect. Next slide. This is an aerial of the existing conditions with the ballroom and the new East Garden. And if you -you can see the grand stair and then kind of the patio location which is the relocated Mount Vernon brick receiving the grand stair.
One thing to note in this view is that the East Garden is quite expansive now and extends most of the length of the entire new ballroom. And it does so in making some transitions to the lower level of the ballroom and the colonnade at different elevations. And you'll see that in the next plan.
One thing I will address here is during the Commission of Fine Arts discussion we were also encouraged to do some additional planting on the other sides of the ballroom, which we are in process of doing now.
We have quite a bit of grade change there, and we are considering, you know, a good amount of southern magnolias and other materials there to keep in, you know, in keeping with the
design and, as Matthew mentioned, the landscape, the, you know, diverse landscape that we have on the White House grounds. We have a lot of opportunity there and a lot of grade change.
If you'll go to the next one, please. This is an enlargement, and what you see here is you see the Mount Vernon brick with, you know, the big large patio receiving the grand stair and you have large stone format paving making up the pathways, you know, the connection to the colonnade and the connection to the lower level. The lower level is several feet below the main patio.
But what's most striking about this is you see, you know, the opportunity to really expand on one of the most beautiful things of the current -- the old East Garden with the parterres and, you know, extensive, you know, annual and perennial plantings. And that extends most of the way to the ballroom now.
What you also see here is we've relocated one of the fountains from the East
Garden. We've, as Matt mentioned, we've replanted, we will be replanting four of the topiary holly trees that have been preserved. They're quite striking. And then we've also relocated four of the cast iron benches within the garden.
Go to the next one, please. This is the elevation. You see the topiary, the Ilex topiary symmetrical about the grand stair. Landing on the -- the grand stair lands again on the Mount Vernon brick pavers that have been, you know, placed in the current garden and were relocated from originally.
And then we have the stone pavers to either side with the connections to the upper level of the colonnade and then the lower level of the ballroom. And you can start to see the Ilex and boxwood hedges and the extensive perennial and the annual plantings. Next.
This is more of a technical drawing. And you can go to the next one, please. And then just the, you know, images of the existing
East Garden and the plant and material palette that we're bringing forward. Again, you know, the hedges made up of Ilex hedges and boxwood hedges, perennial borders, annual borders and you know, those wonderful you know, replanted topiary Ilex trees, the cast iron benches, and again, the Mount Vernon brick. And that concludes what we have for the landscape. Thank you.
MR. BARANES: Thanks, Rick. So with that, that concludes our presentation, and we're happy to take questions at this point.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Shalom and Rick, for that. With that, we'll move to questions from the Commission. Do any Commissioners have questions for either Matt with our team or the project team?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions but my usual motion.
CHAIR SCHARF: If you'd like to make a motion, Commissioner Dixon, I guess -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I move the project
forward for consideration, deliberation, et cetera.
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay. Is there a second?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: I'll second.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. With that, I guess we'll proceed. I'd rather not go sequentially just through the Commission. Let's keep things sort of a bit more open-ended than we normally would. Do any Commissioners have questions for the project team? I'll just try to recognize you. I see Commissioner Stidham.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Hi, thank you for the presentation. I have just a couple questions. You know, the public experience outside the gate looking in is really an important part of how the White House grounds are understood and experienced by, you know, as a national civic landscape.
So could you clarify on how the final landscaping design was developed with respect to
this public experience outside the gate, including what aspects of the landscape approach are intended to influence visual continuity, screening, and overall site perception from the adjacent public areas?
MR. PARISI: You want me to take that, Shalom?
MR. BARANES: Sure, go ahead, Rick.
MR. PARISI: Sure. So I think what Matt exhibited and what Shalom exhibited is that, you know, through all the views, you actually cannot see any portions of this new East Garden. But with that said, I think there are plenty of opportunities to embellish some of those views into the gardens, you know, into the other portions of the garden.
You know, the goal wasn't screening this garden. It just happens to be behind a lot of large oaks and other evergreen trees, as you can see from the visuals, right? But I think the goal we do have is to kind of recreate, you know, some of the splendor that you had in that
East Garden and then also break down some of the scale of the building as it lands on the other side of the berm near the Treasury.
And that's the portion that you really, again, can't see from the public, right? But we will be working a little bit more on that side, on that berm side, and that's where I said, you know, in discussions with Commission of Fine Arts, we talked about the, you know, including a series of southern magnolias over there so we really have some -- which are really prominent on the grounds today and flank the entry. So I hope that answers your question. It's just not so visible from, you know, this garden's not so visible.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: So I was thinking less about the garden itself and more about the screening and scaling of the mass on the -- what is that? The east side. So I think you've answered that and that is a detail that you're further looking into. But on the East Garden portion, the Mount Vernon brick, I
recognize that. But for the other sidewalks, it just says stone pavers. Is this limestone or granite or -
MR. PARISI: I think it's currently going to be selected, you know, to work with the building, but I think it is granite. It's not likely limestone. I think it's a gray granite.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Okay. And then I had sort of one more question. You know, nighttime lighting and access and circulations are important parts of this overall site design in the setting, and it's not completely clear to me about those pieces and, given their influence on the public experience, the cohesion of the site and the long-term operations.
Could you clarify a bit about the design intent for any exterior lighting, how the nighttime lighting would be integrated into the building or the landscape elements, and how is it that this new wing will be accessed in the final design?
I know that in your previous session,
there was some talk about it -- coming through the White House in order to access. But then there's these two grand staircase, you know, one in the East Colonnade and one in the East Wing itself. So trying to understand how this is being accessed, because these two staircases sort of throw me off.
MR. BARANES: Sure. I'd be glad to address those questions. Starting with the lighting, first, I'll note that we have a wonderful lighting designer on board. You may be familiar with them, Fisher Marantz Stone out of New York. They've designed many, many lighting installations for nationally-recognized monuments, landmarks. But our overall approach to the lighting is, quite frankly, to keep it quite dim. And the only -- and what we're showing in our drawings is a series of sconces between the arched windows, which are mounted to the walls probably at about around 10 to 12 feet high.
You will not see the source of light
there, but they'll throw a very, very light pool of light both downward and upward on the white walls. And the only area that we intend to highlight with a little more lighting is the portico on the east side where the columns are. There we'll have a combination of step lighting as well as some recessed lighting up in the ceiling to throw some light, you know, down to that primary entry portal.
We will also have low-level landscape lighting throughout around the site, around the structure. And certainly wherever we have stairs, we'll have recessed lighting within the stairs themselves. With regard to access, there are really two primary access points into the ballroom structure. One is off the east side across from the Treasury where the portal is, and that will also accommodate handicap access. It will be accessible. The other primary entrance into the ballroom is directly from the White House, from the East Room. It'll be -- we are going to modify one of the openings.
And by the way, I should note that we are going to be keeping the Palladian windows that you see there. It's an iconic element, and we are going to preserve that. And we don't intend to modify that itself in any way, but so there will be access on the upper level from the East Room, through the colonnade, and then into the Grand Hall of the ballroom structure.
The other stairs that you see off the terraces are primarily for egress purposes. There will be events that will occur both -will have both an indoor and outdoor component to them, and the idea is that the attendees of these events will be able to access a terrace and then spill down into the lawn through those two stairways that you referenced.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thanks for that. If you don't have anything further, Commissioner Stidham -- I think Commissioner Argo, I saw her raise her hand before. I apologize, Commissioner Argo. Do any other commissioners have questions for either our team or the
project team?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR SCHARF: Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yeah. First of all, I want to make it clear. Procedurally, I made the motion to bring this forward because I think we need to move it and have it before us. It's not necessarily a statement of my commitment at this point in time to the project.
MR. BARANES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Because I have been spending some time reviewing the -- some of the -- hope and trying to get through as much of -- as I can of the 38,000 submissions that have been made to us, I want to get a sense of what they are about. So I'm still undecided in terms of my view, vote at this time. I do have a question for the architect though, in terms of the access, which I appreciate you all doing on the I guess the Treasury Department side. Will there be a handicap accessibility on the White
House side of the building?
MR. BARANES: If -- if I understood your question, I -- you're asking about the east access from the -- across from the Treasury, correct?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yeah, I understand that's going to be accessible.
MR. BARANES: Yes.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: But what about the White House accessibility? Let's hope. Suppose we might have a president who maybe reach a point where he's in a handicapped wheelchair, whatever it might be -
MR. BARANES: For the -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Whoever his guest coming from that area, will they have access?
MR. BARANES: Yes, absolutely. Yes.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Okay.
MR. BARANES: There's access, you know, through the front of the White House. There are elevators there, and then we -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yeah, I understand
that part, but they're getting into the
building.
MR. BARANES: Right. And then -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: They -
MR. BARANES: Right. And we've located the elevation of the ballroom floor to match the elevation of the East Room floor.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Okay. So the access is easy. Also, I've been raising a concern about, always about solar. Is there any anticipation? I don't want to affect the aesthetics of this, but any an -- what about the solar concept? Is that being considered in your work?
MR. BARANES: No, we do not intend to have any solar collectors on the building.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: So we're going to have events with all the electricity, lights going on, lots of lights and whatever else, and we're going to be on the grid rather than using the power that's coming from the sun on a daily basis. Okay, that's philosophical. The answer
is no. Thank you. Also, there was some talk about maybe -- since the president now has a helicopter that comes into the lawn, would there be any thought about a helicopter capacity on the roof or not?
MR. BARANES: I'm sorry, I -- I really didn't -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Helicopter access on the roof.
MR. BARANES: Oh, no. No. No. There's no helicopter access to the roof. There's a helicopter landing pad on the lawn south of the White House.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yeah. I understand that part. I've been there -- been there many times.
MR. BARANES: Right. That's -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I just wondered whether it might be accommodated. All right.
MR. BARANES: No. No. We're -- we're not expanding.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: And I accept that.
I appreciate that. All right. I think I may have other questions later as I listen to more testimony from the public, but thank you for your work, as always.
MR. BARANES: Right. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Thanks.
MR. BARANES: Appreciate it.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Dixon. Do any other commissioners have questions?
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: I do, Commissioner Mendelson.
CHAIR SCHARF: Oh. Hey, Commissioner Mendelson, how are you?
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: I'm fine. How are you?
CHAIR SCHARF: Doing great, sir.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: Good. I apologize. I've been in and out, so I have a few questions, and I hope these have not been covered before, but maybe my understanding is that the high industry standard for size of a
ballroom is 15,000 square feet. Is it necessary for this ballroom to be so large, 22,000 square feet?
MR. BARANES: Sure. The industry standard is about 15 square -- 15 square feet per person for a typical hotel ballroom where you might have bar mitzvahs and weddings. Now here, it's quite a different situation, where we not only need to seat 1000 people, but we also have to have space for cameras, for new -- you know -- for journalists.
We have to have space for, you know, a showing of the flags, the military marching in. There has to be additional space for a temporary stage that can be brought in and out. And then there are also security concerns where, you know, we broadened the access aisles, so in the case of an emergency, the president and others, other people attending, can be moved out of the ballroom much more quickly than would be the case in a hotel ballroom. So that's the reason that we're using a larger number than 15 square
feet per person.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: So I'm thinking as you, I was listening to you, the Washington Hilton, everything that you mentioned is there, a stage, a honor guard, cameras. The one thing that isn't there, of course, is the security. But I appreciate your answer. I had brought this up the last time you presented. Why can't the height be reduced? either by lowering the building or not having the ceiling as high, but why can't it be reduced so it's not the same as the -- same height as the White House?
MR. BARANES: Well, there are existing underground structures that are being left in place. And so, we can't really accommodate the program that we have and lower the building into the ground. The only way to lower the building would be to decrease the overall height of the ballroom ceiling, the bottom of which is at about 38 feet right now.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: So, even if it
was 35 feet or 30 feet, I mean, 30 feet is roughly three stories, isn't it?
MR. BARANES: That's right. Yeah. We basically have a ballroom-height ceiling that is in proportion to the 22,000 square feet that we have.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: All right. I'll move on to another question. What is the purpose of the South Portico since it doesn't have an opening into any interior floor? Could it be eliminated or reduced in size so it doesn't overwhelm the historic South Portico of the White House residence?
MR. BARANES: You know, we have it there. It's really part of the egress sequence out of the ballroom. You come out to the terrace, down half a flight of stairs, and then you can either turn left, go onto the portico, and then down that larger stair, which is at the center of the portico, or alternatively, you can continue straight. Is it an absolutely essential part of the program? I would say no,
it's not. It's really it's an aesthetic decision to have it there.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: So, then -but it's an aesthetic decision. Doesn't it compete with the historic south portico of the existing residence?
MR. BARANES: I don't know that it competes. I mean, it's several hundred feet away. It certainly has a different scale, a different feel to what you see on the residence. If it were any closer to the residence, I think I would agree with you and it would compete, but I think given the distance, given that it's so much further south, I think that mitigates that comparison quite a bit.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: I'll keep moving. So, this may have been covered in the presentation, and again, I apologize. I was in and out. But how far in front of the Treasury Building will the ballroom project?
MR. BARANES: How far -- how much further south?
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: Yeah. I guess it would be. I said front, and I think the front is actually Pennsylvania Avenue. Maybe I'm wrong. But yes, further south. How much further south does the ballroom project than the Treasury Building?
MR. BARANES: To be honest with you, I don't have that number in my head. If I had to guess, I'm going to approximate here, I would say probably somewhere between 40 and 50 feet. I suspect that's not the exact number, but that's approximately the range.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: Okay. I know there were the viewshed presentations. Why is the second-story colonnade connecting the two buildings necessary? How would you explain the imbalance with the West Wing?
MR. BARANES: Well, it's necessary if you're -- you know, we want to access the ballroom from the East Wing without going outdoors.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: Yes.
MR. BARANES: And so, the only way to do that is really to create a second story on the colonnade. Otherwise, you'd be exiting the White House. You'd be outdoors walking across the roof of the colonnade to enter the ballroom. So, the two stories allows you to move from one building to the other without having to go outdoors.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: But then that creates the imbalance of the West Wing.
MR. BARANES: Yeah, I know. That's a very interesting question. It has a lot of history behind it about the imbalance. I mean, I could take a moment to address that more thoroughly. I mean, I think it's a pretty foundational issue, and it's actually surfaced historically on multiple occasions.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: Yeah.
CHAIR SCHARF: So, can you speak to that a bit? I mean, the history of it is quite fascinating.
MR. BARANES: Sure, sure, I can do
that. You know, and I'll do that, you know, not so much in the spirit of defending any particular design, but really more in the spirit of broadening our understanding of the overall context, which Matthew in his staff presentation discussed at some length. We have maps from the 1790s and, you know, even the early 1800s that show how President Washington, George Washington, intended the White House to be sited on this 82-acre parcel of land and be symmetrically framed by two slightly smaller buildings. You know, they were identified, those two. Those two buildings were identified. One is the Treasury on the east, and the other one is the State War and Navy Building on the west. And what's interesting is that this vision was significantly different than what L'Enfant had envisioned, and this vision was also altered as these two flanking buildings, EOB and Treasury, were completed over about a 50-year period. Both these buildings wound up being considerably larger than the White House,
not smaller as originally intended. And again, interesting enough, in addition to all of this, any attempt at creating symmetry and balance at that point, which was part of the original plan. But that intent of creating symmetry and balance was basically abandoned at that point. You know, State-War Building wound up being about twice the height of the -- and also about twice the size of the Treasury. And this absence of symmetry and absence of balance, you know, interesting enough again, resurfaced during the Truman administration. And it was the heart of a debate that relating, you know, that was relating -- that related really to another proposed addition flanking the executive residence that was being considered back in the 1950s. And this is the most interesting part about it, I think, which is that the central issue in the debate was the question of whether this site should be viewed as a campus. When I say this site, I'm talking about the 83 acres of the White House reservation. So, whether it
should be viewed as a campus with multiple buildings on it, or whether any new construction in the general vicinity of the general White House residence could only be viewed as an addition to the White House itself? The ballroom that you're considering today that we're proposing is sited about 135 feet away from the residence. So yeah, the question I would raise is, can it be viewed as another building on the campus which joins a larger family of buildings and mediates the scale between the Treasury to the White House, or alternatively, is its proximity to the White House such that it can only be viewed as an addition with no other considerations? You know, and as I said earlier, I raise this question not so much in defense of any particular design, but more as a general proposition relating to the larger context. In a sense, I think we have history repeating itself here, you know, just as the increasing intensity of government functions required both
the Treasury, the main Treasury, and State War Navy Building to grow considerably and alter their intended symmetry and relationship to the Executive Mansion. You know, today there appears to be a functional need that did not exist back then that cannot be met by the existing facilities on the White House reservation and thus requires revisiting the whole question of context and scale and balance. This is not a new question. It's been addressed, as I said, several times in the past.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: And that's a long answer to my question of how would you explain the imbalance with the West Wing.
MR. BARANES: Well, I mean, I'm pointing out here that historically, as we look at the White House, the imbalance between the two sides existed over many, many decades at different times in history. You know, the imbalance was created between, you know, the differing sizes of the Treasury and EOB. The 50-year period from about 1842 forward for the
next five decades where only one of those two buildings had been completed, you know, we had an imbalance, and it's interesting to me that that imbalance has really, is a very fundamental part of the history of this site.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: So, I have one last question. What's going to happen with the east facade of the residence, including specifically the triple window?
MR. PARISI: We are -- all we're doing there is we're taking one of the windows and lowering the sill down to the floor so the window can become a door, and you'll be able to leave the East Room through that opening onto the colonnade. And that's the only change that we're making.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: Okay. Those were my two questions that I had. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Mendelson. Do any other commissioners have any questions or comments at this time?
COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER: Hey, Chairman,
this is Paul Schaefer. I just wanted to commend the team. This is fantastic work, something we that I believe we can be proud of, and this is going to be a lasting legacy. So, fantastic work. So, thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Schaefer. Any other commissioners?
COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: I'd also just like to associate with the comments just made. I think this is magnificent design. Really, really impressed by the results and all the time, energy and thought put into this by the architects and the team, especially over a fairly short period of time. I think we've made considerable progress just over the last couple of months alone. You know, I think it's great. It's a tribute to not only what this a -- you know, what's going on with this administration, but, you know, I think the White House should grow with the nation. I think, you know, the White House shouldn't be a static building. It should develop with the times, and, you know, I
think this is a tribute to kind of where the United States currently is positioned in terms of global leadership. I really appreciate the and the consistency between the Executive Mansion and the neoclassical architectural language that it continues with this latest design. And very much appreciate all the progress being made. I think also, I just want to comment on, you know, I think, you know, we're talking about its size, but a lot of European ballrooms are -- tend to be this size or even greater. I know some of you know, the grandest sort of palaces in Austria, Italy, France, tend to be over 1000000 square feet. In some cases, 2500000 square feet. I'm thinking of the Winter Palace, the Hofburg Palace, the Louvre Palace. So, I think actually if you compare it on a global arena, it's still fairly modest in size. So, to the extent that we could continue to keep, you know, just sort of keep the size and the proportions and make a large statement, I think is really good. And you
know, I just wish you all the best of luck as you continue this progress.
CHAIR SCHARF: I'd say you don't even have to go as far afield as these great palaces in Europe, Paul. I think the Washington Hilton Ballroom, I would guess, is almost forty, fifty percent larger than the floor space of the ballroom we have contemplated here. But yeah, thank you, Paul. Do any other Commissioners have comments or questions? Hearing and seeing none, I'd just like to say a few quick things. I expect I'll speak at significantly greater length at our April meeting when this comes up for a final vote. Shalom mentioned a bit about the history of the White House complex, and, all of you know, I'm quite fascinated by history as it relates to architecture. The White House has essentially at every stage of its development every new addition, including the initial construction of the White House, has been roundly criticized, often for reasons of size and scale. Thomas Jefferson described the
original James Hoban designed mansion as big enough for two emperors, one pope, and the Grand Lama in the bargain. Obviously, the construction of EEOB, then the State, War, and Navy Building, which Shalom referenced. Mark Twain called it the ugliest building in America, and Henry Adams described it as an architectural infants' asylum. So we have a long history of criticisms being leveled at new additions to the White House, which in time have come to be celebrated. I'd note, for example, the addition of the Truman Balcony to the south facade of the White House was roundly condemned in its time, and now we consider it to be a vital piece of probably the most famous elevation or famous view of the White House. That South Portico. I believe in time that this ballroom project will be similarly recognized and will be similarly iconic. And I'd also commend the project team for the significant advances in the design that we've seen as a commission since the informational presentation in January. I think
the removal of the southern pediment is a great improvement on the original design. I think it more effectively frames the central executive residence and builds more continuity between the executive residence treasury and then now the proposed ballroom in the middle. I think that you know, I commend our team at NCPC for their constructive comments. I'd encourage the project team to continue looking at ways to incorporate those comments into the final design. I'd also compliment the project team. At our last meeting at that informational presentation, I'd asked for more detailed viewsheds that included landscaping to really get a better feel of what the pedestrian experience would be like once this -- once the ballroom's construction would be potentially completed. And I think in the presentation today we've really seen that, and it's quite enlightening, and I appreciate your attention to that matter as well. Overall, though, I would echo something that Matthew said at the start of
his presentation on behalf of NCPC staff, which is that when you look at the public comments we've received, when you look at a lot of the public criticism that's been leveled at the ballroom, it's matters that just extend far beyond the scope of this commission's statutory jurisdiction and really this commission's purpose. I think we're here to consider matters that fall within our purview. I would commend our staff and the Commissioners presence today for really maintaining that focus and sticking to that focus. And as we proceed into the public comment portion of today's meeting, I hope that focus is maintained and that this doesn't just sort of become a more generalized airing of grievances. With that having been said, do any other Commissioners have questions or comments before we proceed? Well, with that, I'd once again like to thank our professional staff at NCPC and the project team for their enlightening presentations today. And we'll now proceed into the public testimony portion of
today's meeting. I spoke with Marcel and Meghan and the team at NCPC before -- right before we got going as a commission. A number of people we'd expected to testify have indicated that they no longer wish to testify today or at all. They don't wish to contribute public comments on the project. As a result of that, I think if we're willing to go late tonight, if we're willing to sort of keep going until about 7:00,
7:30 tonight, we may be able to exhaust all public comments today as opposed to having to reconvene tomorrow. That would certainly be my preference unless members of the Commission feel otherwise. And I'd also just note, I think this goes without saying, that if public comments include, you know, obscenities or slurs or anything like that, we're going to have to cut off the, regrettably, cut off those members of the public. I think that's all I really have to say. Meghan, I think -- how are we going to do this? Do you want to call up the first five public witnesses, we'll proceed on that basis?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes, I will. So, to start and just so the Commission is aware, we will move in groups of roughly five witnesses. We'll hear from each of them, and then at the conclusion of that group you'll be asked if you have any questions for that group, and then we'll move on to the next group. So, to start, we have Carol Quillen, David Scott Parker, Brian Green, Priya Jain, and Joanna Hampton. So, I'll start. Carol Quillen, you are representing the National Trust for Historic Preservation and have five minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. QUILLEN: Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: When you're ready.
MS. QUILLEN: Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and members of the National Capital Planning Commission, my name is Carol Quillen and I do speak on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I am really grateful for this opportunity. First, I want to thank you all for your service. You have a huge responsibility. You oversee the collaborative
planning process for our nation's capital, something in which all Americans have a stake. Washington, D.C. is the symbolic heart of the United States. Its design and architecture should embody the enduring values of the American people and the bold aspirations of our founding. Visiting here should ground all Americans in these shared values so that together, we can build a more perfect union for our children and our children's children as our forebears did for us. For this city to ground Americans in our enduring values, its layout and key buildings must connect to our history. We need to see the through line from the 1791 L'Enfant Plan to the Comprehensive Plan of today. We must be able to recognize places where our history happened. Because connecting to our history serves people in the present, this commission identifies historic preservation as a key component of the Comprehensive Plan for the nation's capital. You are stewards of places that matter to all Americans, places
where we learn where we came from and who we might become. By acting as responsible stewards, you can inspire each of us to connect to our highest ideals. At the same time, of course, this commission must also consider the needs of the public servants who occupy our historic landmarks now. It's a hard job both to honor your obligation to connect the public to our enduring values through historic preservation and to meet the needs of public servants who occupy our iconic buildings. I know it's hard. I know it's challenging because my colleagues at the National Trust strive to do it every day. At the National Trust, we activate the power of historic places to serve people now. And because we do this every day, I can say with confidence that you don't have to choose. You don't have to choose between respecting our history for the American people and accommodating modern government needs. In the case of the East Wing Modernization project, you can do both. Doing both, however, requires
that you take your time, that you move deliberately, that you engage seriously with ideas offered by the tens of thousands of architects, planners, and patriotic citizens who have taken the time to write to you. These people are worth hearing out. The American people have good ideas. We know you can build a ballroom that, unlike the current plan, truly honors the iconic status, the primacy, and the historic significance of the People's House. Comments submitted to you show how this could be done. The resulting ballroom would be smaller, and it would still hold 1000 people for a seated dinner. It would be lower in height, and it would still accommodate the functions proposed in the current plan. It would respect the building's architectural style, and it would retain the existing access along Pennsylvania Avenue between the Capitol and the White House, thereby preserving a physical representation of the symbolic connection between the legislative and the executive branches in a nation committed
to representative government and public accountability. This consultative process that you are offering us, this process exists for a reason. It enables you to draw on the collective wisdom of many and not just that of one man or faction. Listening to the views of the American people and incorporating the best of our ideas will result in a better overall project as it builds a shared sense of purpose on a contentious issue. Getting to this point, I know, takes patience. The democratic deliberation is slow. It's also the hallmark of a government by the people. Thank you so much for the opportunity to be with you today. We, at The National Trust, remain ready to work with you to improve this important project. Thank you very much for your time.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Carol.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. David Scott Parker, I believe, has not joined, so we will move on to Brian Green. Brian, you have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MR. GREEN: There we go. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. The White House is a national historic landmark and the People's House. Any visible change -
MR. PARKER: Well, look at your computer. It has your name.
MR. GREEN: Excuse me?
MR. PARKER: Oh. I'm David Parker. I am here. I don't know why I wasn't recognized.
MR. GREEN: Okay.
CHAIR SCHARF: Why don't we proceed with Mr. Green at this point, and then we'll get you in after that, Mr. Parker? And if we could accommodate Mr. Green so that he has the full three minutes to so that he's not penalized for this interruption.
MR. GREEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR SCHARF: Of course.
MR. GREEN: Again, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. The White House is a
national historic landmark and the People's House. Any visible change must be exceptionally restrained. The proposed ballroom and East Wing modernization as submitted to NCPC by the Office of the Executive Residence would permanently and adversely alter the character of the complex. As to size and massing, the proposed East Wing is disproportionately large in footprint, height, and volume relative to the Executive Mansion, West Wing, and the colonnades. It overwhelms the ensemble and diminishes the mansion's visual primacy. For more than two centuries, additions have been scaled to preserve that primacy. The McKim, Mead White's West Wing of 1902 was held to one story with explicit guidance that additional height would injure the White House. That restraint was respected in the 1934 West Wing expansion and the 1902 and 1942 East Wing works. By program and section, the current scheme exceeds what is necessary for a 900 person assembly and substitutes bulk for careful siting. The remedy
is straightforward. It requires significant reduction in footprint, height, and mass. As to classical design, the proposal is neither discreet nor well-proportioned for this context. The composition reads ponderous. Colonnades and large arched windows are repetitive and overblown, ill-matched to the mansion's quieter scale. On the east, the pediment and colonnade are over-scaled and asymmetrically placed, unresolved in plan and not in register with interior spaces. Removing the south pediment is welcome, but further reduction is needed. Here, classical design should defer, not compete. If a fitting solution cannot be achieved, a responsible path would be to rebuild the East Wing's exterior largely as it was and locate the ballroom elsewhere. As for architectural details, several elements amplify the outsized reading of the ballroom. The three cascading south stairs have no precedent on the campus and rival the south portico's more modest steps. The proposed east and south porticos with large
Corinthian orders compete with the Executive Mansion's smaller, finer Ionic columns. Column size, count, and spacing draw attention from the mansion rather than frame it. These are not programmatic necessities. These are choices. NCPC should require the removal of nonessential features beginning with the south portico and cascade and mandate revisions to the orders, proportions, and spacing so that the addition supports rather than overshadows the historic core. The ballroom's southern footprint forces an abrupt bend into the existing curve, disrupting President's Park historic composition of soft axial curves and symmetric greens. Reduce the southward extent to restore the legible continuous geometry of drives and lawns. From the Capitol steps and to the east, the new mass blocks and overwhelms views of the Executive Mansion and its landscaped grounds. Protect these views by lowering height, tightening the plan, and pulling mass away from key sight lines. In closing, please require
meaningful reductions in size, massing, restrained classical language and details that restore the Executive Mansion's clear visual supremacy. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Green. Can we now proceed with Mr. Parker, if you're still with us, sir?
MR. PARKER: I am here. Can you hear me?
CHAIR SCHARF: I can.
MR. PARKER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. I'm David Scott Parker, a practicing architect for over 36 years and fellow of the AIA. I am here to express grave concerns about the proposed White House ballroom. During my remarks, I will reference graphics submitted in my written test comments as well as project them on the screen behind me. 1, the scale is overwhelming. The proposed ballroom portico is 166 percent larger than the White House South Portico and 47 percent larger than the Treasury South Portico.
An appendage to the White House should be subservient. 2, the program is inflated. American architecture industry standard for ballroom ranges from 10 to 15 square feet per person. Based on the high standard, a ballroom for 1000 people should be 15000 square feet. However, the proposed space is over 22000, 47 percent larger than industry standard. 3, the volume is exaggerated. It is nearly three times the original White House, a violation of classical architecture principles mandating balance and the Secretary of the Interior standards. 4, the portico is illogical. The ballroom floor is 12 feet higher than and does not connect to its south portico, and neither does the kitchen underneath. 5, the portico floor has no function or purpose, is not ADA-accessible, does not lead to an entrance, and its doors are fake. In addition, the 24 columns render the porch useless while also blocking views from the ballroom above. 6, George Washington commissioned L'Enfant to design
Washington D.C., and the two buildings he specifically called out on axis were the President's House and the US Capitol. The importance of this axis, urbanistically, historically, and symbolically, cannot be overstated. 7, the axial connection between two branches of government will be forever aborted. 8, the rendering from the architect's latest submission reveals that the new ballroom becomes the main feature, completely blocking the view of the White House and grounds from Capitol steps. The sliver to the right in red is the Treasury, which does not block the view of the White House grounds. And 10, the ballroom floor is unnecessarily elevated 25 and a half feet above street level. The entrance level of the building is irrationally devoted to non-public service and support spaces. And a kitchen is immense, two and a half times larger than industry standard. Lastly, the overwhelming mass as viewed from Pennsylvania Avenue could be reduced over 38 percent if the ballroom were
resized to industry standard while lowering the currently fully above-grade kitchen and eliminating the inaccessible and unusable south portico. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to be with you here today and for considering these careful observations. Please respect the historic White House, its Olmsted-designed landscape, which will be detoured by the new building, axial viewshed, and symbolic relationship to the Capitol.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Parker.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. Next, we have Priya Jain. You are representing the Society of Architectural Historians and have five minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. JAIN: Thank you. My name is Priya Jain, and I'm a licensed architect in the state of Texas. I offer these comments as a private citizen and as chair of the Heritage Conservation Committee of the Society of Architectural Historians. These views do not represent the opinions of my employer, Texas A&M
University. The Society of Architectural Historians, founded in 1940, is the leading organization for architectural historians in North America. The White House is the most significant building in our nation. Since 1800, it has served as the symbol of our democracy and as the temporary home for American presidents. The East Wing modernization project under your review will adversely and permanently alter this national historic landmark. While we acknowledge the White House has evolving needs, we emphasize that this project is the first major change to its exterior appearance in the last 84 years. We therefore urge NCPC to exercise due diligence in review and respectfully draw attention to four major issues. First, disruption to President's Park landscape. Due to the ballroom's large footprint, the curved driveway south of the East Wing has an incongruous sharp bend. This is not only visually jarring but strays from the historic design of softly curved pathways and
symmetrical green spaces. President's Park, a designated national park, reflects landscape principles that have withstood the test of time and are seen in a series of classical, circular, and elliptical forms. The ballroom disrupts this harmony and can easily be improved by reducing the footprint. Second, incompatible massing, size, and scale. The proposed East Wing is disproportionately larger than any single building in the White House. Therefore, it overwhelms everything and, most importantly, the central historic residence. The architectural history of the White House makes it abundantly clear that since 1800, each subsequent addition has maintained the visual supremacy of the executive residence. When the architects McKim, Mead, and White added the West Wing in 1902, they specifically designed a one-story addition and noted, I quote, no increase in height be permitted because of the injury that would result to the White House. End quote. This was respected in 1934 when the West
Wing was expanded by adding a short penthouse edition and subterranean spaces and both in the 1902 and 1942 expansions of the East Wing. Some flamboyant additions that dwarfed the Executive Residence were indeed proposed between the 1880 and 1902 but rejected by Congress. This history of change at the White House proves that thoughtfully designed, intentionally scaled, and appropriate additions are possible. You can and should ask for a building that is significantly smaller. Third, incompatible architectural details. There are many individual elements that conflict with the historic architecture and contribute to the outsized scale. For example, the three cascading stairs on the south. There is no precedent for these in the historic building, and they rival the more modest stairs at the south portico of the Executive Residence. Similarly, the massive columned porticos of the ballroom rival the modest north and south porticos at the Executive Residence in their size and number of columns. Large Corinthian
columns, the most ornate of the three Greek orders, are used at the ballroom and detract from the simpler, thinner Ionic columns at the Executive Residence. We urge NCPC to ask for removal of these unnecessary features and modification of others. Fourth, loss of key viewsheds. The view of the White House from the
U.S. Capitol Building, a key element of the L'Enfant Plan, will forever be altered due to the obstructing ballroom. This critical issue can again be solved by reducing the ballroom's mass. In the past, NCPC has rigorously reviewed projects at the White House that were much smaller in scale and visual impact. Yet, for this substantial addition, you propose a rushed timeline, approving both concept and final plans today. Not only does this limit a thorough review but silences the voice of American people through decreased opportunities for input. We respectfully urge you to ask for an improved ballroom addition and preserve this symbol of American heritage. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Jain.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. The last person in this group is Joanna Hampton. I don't believe that Joanna has joined. So, at this point, Mr. Chairman, the Commission can ask questions of these witnesses. So, that would be Carol Quillen for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, David Scott Parker, Brian Green, and Priya Jain for the Society of Architectural Historians.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Meghan. Do any Commissioners have questions for these four individuals? Hearing none, I thank those of you who commented today for your comments and spending the time to help inform our process. Meghan, can we proceed with the next batch of public comments?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. Next, we have Rob Cagnetta, Rebecca Miller, Jim Stites, Tim Balkie, and Gazal Dabiri. Rob Cagnetta, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. Proceed when you're ready.
MR. CAGNETTA: Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity for me to comment. My name is Rob Cagnetta. I am a building restoration specialist and president of Heritage Restoration, a company based here in Providence, Rhode Island, that focuses on the preservation and restoration of historic buildings. From that perspective, my remarks focus on the fundamental preservation principle.
When new construction is introduced besides an internationally significant historic structure, careful attention must be given to scale, hierarchy, and contextual design. For more than two centuries, the White House has served as both the residence and working office of the president of the United States. While the building has been updated over time, including major structural reconstruction undertaken during the Truman administration, those interventions consistently respected the original architectural composition and the
primacy of the central residence.
Even the later addition in the East and West Wings were conceived as subordinate elements. Their role was to support the functioning of the White House while maintaining the architectural dominance of the main house. They were designed to complement the residence and not compete with it. This longstanding discipline is essential to preserving the symbolic and architectural clarity of the White House complex.
The project documentation itself acknowledges that the proposed structure would have a larger footprint and height that would dominate the eastern portion of the site and create a visual imbalance within the Executive Mansion. When the adjacent structure becomes visually dominant in this way, the architectural hierarchy that has defined the White House for generations becomes disrupted.
So, in this case, the premise used to evaluate the significance appears to rely
heavily on the limited public visibility of the proposed structure. However, preservation practice evaluates historic sites as complete compositions where the relative relationships between the buildings, landscape, and circulations remain significant regardless of whether every vantage point is publicly accessible.
So, in addition, the proposed alters the historic circulation of the East Grounds. The design interrupts the traditional circular driveway by introducing the ballroom structure across it. That change modifies the spatial organization of the east side of the White House grounds, which historically has maintained a clear and balanced relationship between the buildings, landscape, and circulation.
This is not a simply as an aesthetic concern. Architecture communicates meaning. The White House is one of the most recognizable civic buildings in the world, and its physical prominence reflects its role as the center of
American executive leadership. Any new construction within this should reinforce that meaning rather than dilute it. So, if additional gathering space is needed, there are certainly ways to accommodate that function. However, those solutions should be developed with the explicit goal of preserving the architectural hierarchy that historically has defined the White House.
Thank you very much for your time and the opportunity to speak.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Rebecca Miller, representing the DC Preservation League, and have five minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. MILLER: Thank you. My name is Rebecca Miller. I am the executive director of the DC Preservation League. We are a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. dedicated to preserving and protecting the District's historic resources. We were founded in 1971 as Don't Tear It Down to save the Old Post Office
Building on Pennsylvania Avenue from demolition.
DCPL has consistently worked to ensure that proposed new developments and the adaptive reuse of historic buildings do not compromise the character of our great city. DCPL appears today to express serious concerns and strong opposition to the current mass and proportions of the proposed East Wing addition to the White House.
While the current administration has emphasized the need for modernization and functionality for this important addition to the White House grounds, the proposed design strays far from the most fundamental principle of historic preservation, which dictates that new additions to historic buildings should be deferential and should allow the primary structure's significance to remain intact.
The scale of the proposed new construction raises significant concerns as it dwarfs the Executive Residence. The original spaces within the White House were designed to
convey a sense of proportion and intimacy, which are vital to the building's charm and historical significance. In contrast, the proposed East Wing addition is disproportionately large and impersonal and will detract from the dignified atmosphere that has characterized presidential events for centuries.
This stark shift in design reflects a troubling impulse directed toward grandiosity that would prioritize spectacle over the subtleties of history and image of our country. Questions also arise regarding the proposal to the East Colonnade, and I do appreciate Mr. Baranes' explanation as to how the colonnade would attach to the historic building. The proposed changes raise important questions about the stewardship of the White House. Preserving the integrity of the Executive Residence is not merely about maintaining its physical structure, but also providing for public input and transparency on proposed modifications to this highly symbolic building.
Through a substantially secretive process, depriving the public of reasonable and meaningful participation for the sake of grandiose expansion, we risk erasing the very essence of what makes the White House a leading symbol of American history. DCPL acknowledges the need for facilities that meet modern requirements, but we believe such decisions must be approached with the utmost respect for history and context.
The proposed addition in its current form not only violates established norms for historic preservation by overshadowing the historic structure, but it also risks diluting the rich heritage that the White House represents. The argument that the scale of the proposed new construction is compatible because of the scale of the adjacent structures like the Treasury or the Eisenhower Executive Office Building is a specious one.
Further, the argument that erecting tents on the South Lawn diminishes the integrity
of the historic landscape, with only temporary and reversible impacts, does not appropriately acknowledge the profound and permanent impact that this proposed addition would have on the White House complex as a whole.
For more than 50 years, DCPL has served as the leading voice for the preservation of Washington, D.C.'s architectural heritage and possesses the expertise and responsibility to identify adverse impacts on historic resources. Based on that expertise, we conclude unequivocally that this current proposal would harm the integrity, character, and setting of the White House complex and President's Park.
Mr. Chairman, at the last hearing, you were lobbying your fellow commissioners about the need for the space to host foreign dignitaries. You held forth that King Charles hosts events in Windsor Castle. One of your other commissioners today was talking about the palaces around the world. 250 years ago, the people of America rejected monarchies, and we
don't have palaces for that particular reason.
And I'll also remind the Commissioners that there is a classically-inspired palatial ballroom that the federal government owns mere blocks from the White House. It's called the Mellon Auditorium. It accommodates 1,000 guests and was recently restored at great expense to the taxpayer.
The Commission has received tens of thousands of public comments from residents and experts opposing the size of this project. Please do not ignore the public sentiment for the addition that would be respectfully deferential to the historic landmark and compatible with the White House complex. You cannot compare a basement ballroom outside of the federal city or palaces around the world to the People's House, the White House here in Washington, the District of Columbia. Thank you very much.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. Next, we have Jim Steitz. You have three minutes to
provide your testimony.
MR. STEITZ: Yes, thank you. My name is Jim Steitz, and I am a plain old American citizen. And I would like to remind the Commission that every human being really, not named Donald Trump, understands that this misnamed modernization project, and I put that in big scare quotes, is an insult to everything that the architecture of our nation's capital city was meant to evoke.
A space that once evoked empathy, mercy, humanity, and the small civic rituals that made government officials human beings has been destroyed. Now this administration wants to replace it with a gold-gilded edifice to one man's ego, an architectural ascent to his self-identification as a royal monarch with no relation to official government work. Like past kings, access is available to the wealthiest and most connected interests willing to make sufficient tributes and propitiation.
This gaudy, pretentious monstrosity is
projected to dwarf in size the actual People's White House. This reflects and reifies in architecture the new regime coalescing around loyalty to one man, superseding the executive branch governed by law and composed of professional civil servants that America had enjoyed. The president had been understood to be a tenant of the White House, but now he claims ownership and right of disposition.
I understand that your role today appears to be perfunctory and that no actual impediments can be erected to a personal sovereign by a mere planning commission. However, you must formally reject this ballroom if only to put down a marker for the repair of America's Capitol and the civic self-understanding it evokes, including the prompt demolition of this ballroom once this dark era passes into historical shame. Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. The next two witnesses, Tim Bahlke and Ghazzal Dabiri, I do not believe are present. So at this point -
CHAIR SCHARF: Do any Commissioners have questions for the last three public witnesses? Hearing none, let's proceed with our next batch. Meghan?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Next is Jeffrey Dorchin (phonetic), Susan DeBree, Scott Corzine (phonetic), Terry Burstein, and Peter Kizilos-Clift.
CHAIR SCHARF: Is Mr. Dorchin with us?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: I do not believe so. I believe of this group, we'll start with Terry Burstein.
MR. BURSTEIN: Hi, I'm here. I don't see myself.
CHAIR SCHARF: We can hear you, Mr. Burstein.
MR. BURSTEIN: All right. Well, I wish I could -
CHAIR SCHARF: And I can see you. There you go.
MR. BURSTEIN: There I am.
CHAIR SCHARF: There you go.
MR. BURSTEIN: All right. Hello. Can
this group tell the American people they are going to take the public's comments seriously? You have recognized that the public is against this. This is the first of several questions I would like answered when I'm finished. Why have someone spend their time and all of you spend time and funds to offer the public the opportunity to comment as I am doing now if the decision to move forward with the ballroom has already been reached?
When I watched the video of your February meeting, it was sorrowful to watch a
U.S. citizen testify against the RFK Stadium and then, with less than a minute of her close, you all took up a vote as if her testimony was a formality you could not wait to get through. Why are you giving me the opportunity to speak when it has already been decided the ballroom will be built, unless this is purely a legal requirement?
You are individually responsible for
the widening of the road to the destruction of the power of U.S. citizens to create change. Hiding under the guise of the title of the National Capital Planning Commission will not remove your individual actions. You are complicit in the destruction of a national historic landmark owned by the American people.
With close to 100 percent of the American people's comments to all committees against this plan, why are you moving to approve? According to the National Capital Planning Act of 1952, which created your committee, the White House is a national historic landmark.
You are approving the building of an indoor ballroom over the site and on the ground where this national landmark stood because you wish to be pleasing to the current regime. You need to be reminded you have free will, which, if you do not oppose this, you are using to do the bidding of you-know-who. If you approve this concept, your acts will be written in
history along with each of your names, rather than the innocuous title of the National Capital Planning Commission.
I ask anyone hearing or reading my words to go to the staff web page of the National Capital Planning Commission where you may email or telephone every member of this group in perpetuity, or until they remove their telephone numbers and email addresses. I yield back my time.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. I believe that was the only witness from that group, so if there are any questions for Mr. Burstein before we move to the next.
CHAIR SCHARF: Do any commissioners have questions for Mr. Burstein? Hearing none, Meghan, do you want to proceed with the next group of witnesses?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. Next, we have Marcie Monroe, Timothy Stafford, Heidi Johnson, Tara Brown, and Martha Shea. I believe we will
start with Tara Brown. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. BROWN: Oh, there we go. Hello. Sorry about that. My name is Tara and I'm the owner and operator of Crown Rose Estate Distillery. And I have to say that being a business as well as an owner and one who lives in a historic property, it can be extremely challenging to meet all these demands and requests that are expected from the general public as well as from, you know, everybody.
Trying to satisfy those needs can be, like I said, a daunting task. I think it's wonderful how you guys have put together this incredible group and navigated these waters to help this project turn out to be wonderful, and I'm happy to see where it's going and thankful that this has really happened. I'm actually kind of surprised it's not on the National Register, which I thought it was.
But I could imagine if you guys can do this much work to collaborate and make this
project even better, I could imagine the ability to help other projects, such as like a project like mine. The reason why I'm bringing this up is this type of process of meeting everybody's expectations as well as getting a project done is very hard, especially with building codes and things like that, and there's no hope for local properties to get this type of support like this project is.
We would love to see more of this support locally that historic properties could go to, to get help when it comes to navigating these types of treasurers' codes and things like that. I think that this is great that our president is giving us a gift of this incredible ballroom that is much needed especially for his security and allowing him to have a place that he can have people come together and have it safe.
So I think it's great to have the proper sizing for the security and for those members that need to attend to those events.
This is our nation, one nation under God, and we are an icon. People look at us. And so, coming to the United States, I think it's important that we have a great first impression and I think this looks really well and I'm in full support of what our president is doing, and we should be thankful and blessed to have had someone like President Trump, who's had decades of building, doing this project, and we are in great hands. And I thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Brown.
MS. BROWN: Yes.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: I do not believe we have any of the other four witnesses from this group at this time, so if the Commission has any questions for Ms. Brown.
CHAIR SCHARF: Do any Commissioners have questions for Ms. Brown? Hearing none, I think we can proceed with the next batch, Meghan.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. Next is Diana
Niculescu, Lucinda Rundell, Nicky O'Keefe (phonetic), Phoebe Tudor, and Kye Rowan. I believe Phoebe Tudor is with us. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. TUDOR: Thank you for the opportunity to comment to the Commission. I would like to outline my concerns about how the plans before you will disrupt rather than reinforce the established design of the White House and offer some alternative views that should be considered by the Commission during this important review process.
These comments are based on my professional background in historic preservation and formal training at Columbia University, where I earned a master of arts in this discipline. The White House is both intertwined with the presidency as an institution and also stands as an enduring public monument that hovers above and beyond any one individual president.
Those who reside there do so for a
limited term, serving as temporary stewards of a place whose meaning and significance far exceed the span of any administration. Our presidents have always been tenants of the White House and not its landlord. The symbolic power of this building has endured through war, reconstruction, expansion, and modernization precisely because past leaders recognized that their responsibility was custodial.
Every president inherits the White House from those who came before. That comes with the obligation to pass it forward, intact in its defining character, to those who will follow. That stewardship requires restraint and decisions that are based on preservation of the building's essential symmetry, its modern form, its relationship with the L'Enfant Plan, its elegant classical design, and its many historic interior and exterior features.
Any new construction within the historic setting of the White House should complement and pay deference to what already
works. Unfortunately, the proposal before the Commission raises serious concerns. While it seeks to echo the architectural language of the White House, it introduces elements that disrupt rather than reinforce the building's established design.
Corinthian columns have been introduced on a building that already uses the Ionic order. There is a monumental staircase on the southern side that does not actually connect to the interior of the building. There are pediments, ceilings, and floors that do not align with the existing counterparts in the White House.
As other architectural experts have commented, these inconsistencies risk weakening the very character of the project it is supposed to blend with. I urge the NCPC to apply the highest standard of care in its review and to reject this proposal as it is. Any new addition to the White House must harmonize with the building's important history and established design. It is ours to protect and pass forward.
Thank you for this opportunity.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. Next we have Kye Rowan. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. ROWAN: Hello. I'm Kye Rowan, just an ordinary citizen. I've been watching this in the news and had a chance to make a comment. I'm not an architect, but the new designs that have been put out there on the internet, it's ugly. It's just ugly. It's too much, you know.
I didn't realize, you know, that it was using -- the columns, for instance, are just out of place, and the building is too high. It needs to come down a story to blend with the rest of the White House campus. And I worry about the cost also of all this ostentatious architectural elements.
This is not a building meant to be ostentatious. It's meant to be grave. It's meant to be the People's House. And I am grieving about the East Wing and how it was torn
down. I visited as a child several times the White House, and once I did get to go past the East Wing. And I won't be able to show this to my grandkids when I take them to D.C. someday.
This has just been a total shame, and I hope the Commission listens to the public, the overwhelming attitude of the public and experts that this plan is just not in line with American values and the White House as it exists right now. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. So that concludes this group, Mr. Chairman, so if there are any questions for Phoebe Tudor or Kye Rowan?
CHAIR SCHARF: Do any commissioners have questions for these two witnesses? Hearing none, thank you both. And Meghan, if we could proceed with the next group.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. Next is Dr. Mary Anne Hunting, Mary Costanzo, Heather Sarandos, Conover Hunt, and Robert Vegter. Dr. Mary Anne Hunting, you have three minutes to provide your
testimony.
MS. SMETANKA: I'm not Mary Ann Hunting.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Okay, are you signed up to testify today?
MS. SMIETANKA: Yes, I am. I'm Mary Smietanka. Don't know why that got there.
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay. Well, why don't you proceed, Ms. Smietanka, and we'll try to track down Dr. Hunting later.
MS. SMIETANKA: Too many Mary Annes, I guess.
CHAIR SCHARF: I -
MS. SMIETANKA: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. My name's Mary Smietanka and I'm a private citizen from Clancy, Montana. I return to the District every year, and each visit reminds me of how important it is to protect the historic and architectural character of the White House. And I believe this proposal puts that at risk. I'm concerned that this project, as proposed, doesn't meet the
standards that protect the federal core.
First, I'm uneasy about a major addition to the White House being privately funded. Private financing brings outside interest into a federal project, and that affects how decisions are made, how large a project becomes, and how much it alters a historic site.
Allowing a privately funded structure of this scale sets a troubling precedent. It opens the door for future federal buildings to be shaped by private donors rather than by consistent public planning standards.
Secondly, the size and the height of the ballroom would visually overwhelm the White House, and other people have talked about this, so I'm not going to spend any time on it, which leads me to my third and major concern.
When this project was presented to the Commission on January 8th, 2026 -- that's the video that I watched -- it was noted that additional changes to the West Wing and the
surrounding grounds are being contemplated and will be brought forward later. Given the scale of what is being proposed, it's troubling to consider any demolition or partial demolition of the West Wing without understanding how future plans relate to this project.
The Commission should be able to review the full scope of anticipated changes together, and I believe plans for the West Wing must be seriously considered as part of the East Wing modernization before any demolition occurs. And I understand here in testifying today that the Commission cannot consider issues like political motives, personal taste, or broader disagreements with the administration, which is why I have limited my testimony.
I respectfully urge the Commission to require a more complete and coordinated approach, one that addresses private funding, protects the scale and settling of the White House, and evaluates any changes to the West Wing as part of a unified plan. Only a design
reviewed in its full context can truly respect the White House's history, its scale, and its place in the federal city.
Thank you for allowing me to speak, and I do hope that you will consider most of the speakers' thoughts. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Smietanka.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Are there any questions for this witness? This is the only person in that group of five.
CHAIR SCHARF: Do any commissioners have questions for Ms. Mary Smietanka? Hearing none, thank you, ma'am. Meghan, if we could proceed with the next group of witnesses.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. Next, we have Catherine Cox, Matias Grau, Kathleen Ridihalgh, Shep Peterson, and Nancy Tychewicz. We'll start with Matias Grau. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.
CHAIR SCHARF: Do we have Mr. Grau with us?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: We did. We can go ahead and move on and see if we can get Matias Grau back.
CHAIR SCHARF: Perfect.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: There's no one else currently present in that group. I believe the next person we have who is present is Kim Adams.
CHAIR SCHARF: Great. Ms. Adams.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Kim Adams, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. It appears that Kim Adams, are you still with us?
CHAIR SCHARF: There we are.
MS. HOAGLAND: Oh, okay. I am not Kim Adams.
CHAIR SCHARF: Oh boy. Who might you be, ma'am?
MS. HOAGLAND: I'm Kim Hoagland, also known as Alison Hoagland. So -
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay.
MS. HOAGLAND: I'm number 96.
CHAIR SCHARF: Ms. Hoagland, it's great to have you with us. Meghan, I guess we should
just proceed with Ms. Hoagland in that case.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Sure, absolutely.
CHAIR SCHARF: And we'll try to find the other Kim in a bit.
MS. HOAGLAND: Okay, great. Thank you. So my name is Alison Hoagland. I'm here today to express my opposition to the East Wing modernization as it has been presented. I'm a longtime resident of Washington, D.C., a professor emerita of history and historic preservation, and the author of six books on American architectural history. I have a long and deep commitment to architectural history and its power to explain the past and inform the present.
The White House, the most significant residential building in the United States, was designed purposefully and symbolically. Its neoclassical design projects order, rationality, and dignity, but not opulence. Its relatively small size is an important part of its symbolism, declaring that this was not a palace
or a castle, but rather a house. The White House should be respected by new construction, not overshadowed by it.
Four aspects of the proposed ballroom are particularly concerning. One, the new building is three times the size of the White House and will dominate it. The architect asserts that trees will obscure the building, and this is absurd. There is no guarantee that trees will survive even a year, much less for the life of the building. Trees are not a design strategy.
Two, the two-story connector is intrusive and unnecessary. The ostensible reason for this second story is so that visitors could enter the White House and proceed through the East Room to the ballroom. But it seems most visitors will enter through the east side of the ballroom, where security screening would take place.
Further, wouldn't this turn the East Room into a hallway? We have not seen plans
that explain the impact on the interior of the White House.
Three, the exterior of the White House will also suffer damage from this enlarged connector, which will impact the handsome Palladian window in the center of the White House's east wall as well as an adjacent window, although it is not clear how. The exterior stone walls date back to the original construction of the White House in the 1790s, unlike much of the rest of the building. The loss of this fabric would be tragic.
Four, the size of the ballroom has not been justified. It would seem that the need to gather a thousand diners would occur only rarely, perhaps only for inaugural balls. Most of the time, the attendance would be smaller, necessitating partitioning of the ballroom space. The 40-foot-high ceiling of the ballroom would be woefully out of scale for a ballroom half of its length or width.
More time is needed for a careful
reconsideration of this project. Constructing a ballroom is possible, but it should be deferential to the White House, not overwhelming. It should be scaled for realistic uses, not aspirational ones. And it should not destroy any fabric of the White House. Thank you for your time.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Hoagland.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. Next, I do believe we now have Matias Grau.
MR. GRAU: All right. I think Willie, my dog Willie agrees with me. All right. Why don't you come back to me? Can you hear me?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: We need to come back to you, Mr. Grau?
MR. GRAU: Well, unless you want to listen to Willie, my lab behind me, but okay. Let me continue. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'm a retired teacher and high school administrator, Matias Grau, and I wanted to say that this edifice, you know -- I want to say that it will be gaudy, garish,
architecturally offensive. In a word, ugly.
But actually, I don't know that. It may end up being beautiful. I suspect not. But what I do know is that it's unnecessary, grossly, expensively unnecessary. In retirement, I serve on the board of the Ignatian Volunteer Corps. It's a nonprofit dedicated to placing retirees in service to other nonprofits that serve the poor, the disadvantaged, the marginalized.
And one nonprofit that we serve is the Jane Place Neighborhood Sustainability Initiative here in New Orleans, established after Katrina. Jane Place is a housing rights organization committed to creating sustainable, economically just neighborhoods and communities here in the city of New Orleans.
This organization works to increase the range of affordable housing options available to low and moderate-income residents and advocating for housing justice across the city. It addresses the needs of those residents most
vulnerable to housing discrimination, displacement, and neighborhood planning exclusion.
This initiative hosts community education events, panel discussions, mixes at bars, teach-ins, community dinners, et cetera. It testifies before the city council to support expanded tenant rights and protect New Orleans' dwindling supply of affordable housing stock.
And Jane Place purchases land and builds homes to lease or sell to low-income residents at rates far below the market rate. This is the kind of building a president should be advocating.
I oppose this waste of money to satisfy one person's vanity. I suggest the funding billionaires redirect their gifts to benefit our fellow citizens who are suffering in some way through poverty, persecution, healthcare inequity, and especially housing market inequality. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Grau.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. Next, we'll have Wendy Joseph. Wendy.
MS. JOSEPH: Yes. Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: You will have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. JOSEPH: Thank you. I'm Wendy Evans Joseph, a fellow of the AIA and the current president of the National Academy of Design. I am strongly against the building of the ballroom as designed. And to repeat what my colleague David Scott Parker so brilliantly analyzed, there are no logical or rational reasons for its scale.
Architecture is a creative act that should not be used as propaganda. Forms have meaning, and the meaning of the White House is truth in governance. The White House is a welcoming home for the American people and the entire globe. Presidents have the privilege of inhabiting this house for their time in office, and this has meant each family leaves their mark.
But this palimpsest of history has, at its best, reflected and respected the fact that we are a democratic nation. This design does not. Architecture has meaning, and that meaning should not be co-opted to speak the language of historical power. Instead of anachronistic, supersized vocabulary hearkening to Roman times of absolute rule, we should choose an architecture of welcome.
We have the right to reject imposing facades, to say no to grandiose rooms, no to inaccessible staircases, no to glitter, no to gold, and what those features mean. Public buildings are more than physical. They have a soul, a central driving spirit. That spirit reflects its purpose, content, and the people it serves.
The White House embodies the soul of the United States, our freedoms. Architecture at its best is an act of optimism. Let the White House be optimistic, not about power, but about welcome. It is the home open to all, not
a stage set for presidential power, privilege,
or pageantry. Thank you so much.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. So Mr. Chairman, at this time, I think we would ask if the Commission has any questions for the previous three witnesses, Alison Hoagland, Matias Grau, or Wendy Joseph.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Meghan. Do any Commissioners have questions for any of these three witnesses? Well, then I'll proceed with thanking them for their testimony, and if we could move on to the next group. And I hope Mr. Grau's dog is doing okay. It sounded a bit distressed.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. Next, we will hear from Carl Elefante and Aileen Mitchell. We'll start with Carl. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MR. ELEFANTE: Yeah. Thank you so much Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, for the opportunity to provide testimony. I very much
appreciate that and very much appreciate your attentiveness here today.
Much of my 50-year architectural career was devoted to preserving and updating cherished historic properties, notably including the United States Capitol and other public and federal buildings in the monumental core and on the National Mall. I know firsthand both the procedures that must be followed and the high caliber of design solutions demanded when intervening in buildings that contribute to our national character the way the White House does.
The proposal before the Commission has not followed those procedures. The proposal before this Commission does not rise to the high caliber demanded for such an important building, for such an important place, and for such a cherished and iconic national symbol.
The stewardship of beloved historic buildings provided opportunities for me to study the best examples of traditional architecture, both the design principles they express and
their durable construction. Built heritage has important lessons to teach. Last year, I published a book that stresses the importance of the lessons of traditional architecture in addressing the challenges of the 21st century.
Cultivating mutual respect between architects who promote modern and traditional design has been one of my objectives in taking on national leadership roles in the architecture and historic preservation professional associations, culminating in my presidency of the American Institute of Architects in 2018. These activities provided the opportunities for me to get to know many of our nation's leading architects.
Recently, I've spoken with respected designers of new traditional architecture about this proposed addition to the White House. None, I repeat, none, believe this proposal to be a compatible and appropriate solution. It is very, very far from the high caliber of design demanded.
It is certainly possible to design a ballroom addition to the White House that would be both compatible and appropriate. I submitted additional written testimony that points to several considerations needing further study that address both process and design approach.
Approval of the current proposal by this commission would be more than regrettable. It would be an irrevocable damage to one of the most important buildings, places, and symbols of our nation. Is that the legacy its proponents and your Commission seeks? Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Next, we have Aileen Mitchell. You will have three minutes to provide your testimony.
CHAIR SCHARF: Is Ms. Mitchell with us?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. I believe you're muted.
MS. MITCHELL: Thank you. Sorry. I am not at my computer, so I'm having to use my
phone. So sorry for that. Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Aileen Mitchell. I am a former White House Visitors Office and worked in the White House in the East Wing under the administration of George
H.W. Bush.
The White House has long been known as the People's House, and any proposal that alters its historic character deserves careful scrutiny. I strongly oppose the current proposal for the East Wing project. During my time in the Visitors Office, I saw firsthand how meaningful it was for Americans and visitors from all around the world to experience the White House and its history.
The White House is simply not a residence or an office complex. It is one of the most recognizable symbols of American democracy. It is also unique among state residences around the world because any member of the public are able to visit it. For generations, millions of Americans, students,
veterans, and international visitors have walked its halls and connected directly with the story of our nation.
The White House East Wing is itself part of that living history. Since its expansion in the 20th century, it has housed the First Lady's office, the White House Visitors Office, and the infrastructure that makes public access possible. It is the engine that allows the People's House to remain open to the people.
Altering and removing these historic spaces within the East Wing risks erasing the institutional memory of staff and public servants who have worked there for decades to welcome visitors and preserve the traditions of the presidency.
Throughout history, presidents have served as temporary stewards of the White House, not owners. While each administration inevitably leaves its mark, the building itself has been carefully preserved so that it reflects the continuity of the American republic rather
than the preferences of one single presidency.
Preservation has long been recognized as a national responsibility, reinforced by historians, curators, and institutions dedicated to protecting the integrity of the White House as an historic site. Modernization and preservation do not have to be in conflict. Necessary improvements should be made thoughtfully and in ways that protect the historic character and legacy of the building.
I hope that everyone will respect the White House as this historic institution and entrust it to its care rather than dramatically alter and redesign it in someone else's image. For these reasons, I urge the Commission to reconsider the current plans and pursue solutions that preserve the historic dignity and public trust embodied in the People's House. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. Next, we will hear from Abigail Bellows. Abigail Bellows
represents Common Cause, so you will have five minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. BELLOWS: Thanks, Meghan, and thank you, Commissioners. I am the senior policy director for anti-corruption and accountability at Common Cause, a non-partisan, grassroots organization that for more than 50 years has been upholding core values of American democracy. On behalf of our one million members across the country, with offices in 23 states, we are angered by the president's ballroom construction, and I want to highlight how this project raises serious ethical concerns about influence peddling and corruption.
Let's talk about what this project really represents. The White House, as we've heard, is the People's House. It represents our shared history and our government's responsibility to serve the public, not wealthy donors. But the president is trying to pay for his $400 million ballroom through checks from mega-donors and corporate titans, like Lockheed
Martin and Amazon.
This is not just a construction project. It's a golden invitation for corruption. Many of the corporations funding the glitzy ballroom have business before the federal government right now, including companies under federal investigation or competing for government contracts. That is a massive conflict of interest.
Let's not kid ourselves. These donors aren't doling out millions to bankroll the president's pet project out of the goodness of their heart. We all must ask, what do they expect in return? Because that's how pay-toplay politics works. Making donations buys you access to power.
That power may come in the form of pardons for crimes like money laundering. It may come in the form of hefty contracts. It may come simply through privileged access, which enables corporate interests to sway the very regulators who should be acting independently.
Sometimes there's an explicit quid pro quo, but other times it's an implied understanding. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Either way, government decisions are being auctioned off to wealthy donors, which leaves the rest of us wondering who our government is working for.
And to have even the appearance of impropriety in the People's House, in the ultimate sacred symbol of our democracy, represents a deep violation of public trust. The White House should not be for sale. And while all this is happening, people are struggling. The costs are rising.
We are having Americans who can't afford rent, groceries, healthcare, and that's why people are speaking out about a $400 million price tag here. More than 134,000 Americans have signed Common Cause's petition to call for an investigation into the financing of Trump's ballroom.
We all deserve to know who is funding
this project, all of the donors. Right now some are still listed as anonymous, which opens the door to influence peddling by foreign governments and criminal organizations. We need to know how much each donor is contributing and whether those donors have received any government contracts, favorable enforcement actions, or other potential kickbacks since they made their donation.
We are calling on Congress to launch a full investigation into the funding behind this ballroom and pass the Stop Ballroom Bribery Act, which has already been introduced in both chambers and would ban presidents from soliciting corporate donations for projects like this.
In closing, this isn't just about the White House as a building. It's also about the White House as a symbol of our government. We cannot have the financing of a building renovation erode the trust in our government.
Each member of this Commission has a
responsibility to pause this project, regain public trust, recuse yourself if you cannot vote independently, and help protect the people's house so that our government stays in the hands of the people. Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. Next, we will hear from William Bates. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MR. BATES: Thank you very much for the opportunity to talk to this esteemed board. It's important work that you do, and I respect that.
And as a board member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and former president of the American Institute of Architects, I'd like to challenge the NCPC to thoroughly and thoughtfully carry out its duty to ensure the modernization of the White House East Wing meet the highest standards of architectural design, sensitivity, balance, and proportion, as is warranted in a project of such national stature.
As currently proposed, the overwhelming scale and faux-classical facade of the ballroom will undermine the historic architectural significance of our White House and disrupt the founding fathers' original campus design intentions.
Likewise, previous encroachments such as that of the Treasury are a poor excuse to totally obscure the symbolic sight lines between the White House and the Capitol Building, which was originally planned in L'Enfant's original street grid.
The intentional design of our capital is rooted in symbolic architectural traditions established by classical ancient Greek and Roman design principles of that grid. The intentional design has been built and respected by our founding fathers, such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
While a presidential ballroom may be long overdue, the project should not be haphazardly expedited at the expense of
centuries of well-established planning and regulatory processes. Our nation's history and our future deserve more dignity, consideration, and due diligence.
I respectfully oppose the design as submitted and implore the NCPC to demand further design options that respect the historic integrity of the people's White House campus. The answer is not in hiding its architectural shortcomings with landscape. The modest revisions offered today are not sufficient to address the major design deficiencies already outlined.
So, in support of all of those other speakers who've preceded me, I encourage you to do your job and take your time to do it right. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Bates.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Mr. Chairman, we can now entertain questions for the previous four witnesses, so that would be Carl Elefante, Aileen Mitchell, Abigail Bellows, and William
Bates.
CHAIR SCHARF: Do any Commissioners have questions for any of our previous witnesses? Okay. Hearing none, I would note that some of the comments we're receiving extend far beyond the scope of this Commission's jurisdiction and its ambit.
We're not, you know, a roving building court. We deal with design issues, with planning issues, with architectural issues certainly, but some of the comments obviously are trending a bit far afield of that while others have been quite instructive and insightful. So I would thank the witnesses who just presented. And Meghan, we can proceed to the next batch.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Great. So the next group, I'm going to call on Jon Golinger, John Kasper, Tom Shiner, and Jonathan Herz. Jon Golinger, we'll start with you. You're representing Public Citizen, so you will have five minutes to provide your testimony.
MR. GOLINGER: Thank you. My name is Jon Golinger, and I speak to you today on behalf of Public Citizen. Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power.
The fix is in for this project and this vote. When President Trump appointed three White House officials, White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair, White House Office of Management and Budget Associate Director Stuart Levenbach, and White House Staff Secretary William Sharp to the NCPC commission seat last July, that put them in a position to take the president's pet projects, ram them through, and rubber stamp them.
Those appointments were not just a crude political power play. They were unlawful, and they destroy the credibility of the vote on this project if those individuals vote for it.
The section of the National Capital Planning Act that Congress designed to establish
this commission, specifically 40 U.S.C. 8711(b)(1)(B), requires that only, quote, citizens with experience in city or regional planning, end quote, are eligible to be appointed by the president to NCPC commission seats.
Given the highly specialized mission of this Commission to engage in extensive and often intricate planning decisions, clearly, this seems designed to ensure that this Commission is led by members who are qualified enough to understand what they're being presented with and know what they're doing. However, none of those individuals had that required planning experience when they were appointed to this Commission by the president.
Therefore, we call on them to recuse themselves from any vote on the White House ballroom project rather than risk jeopardizing the legal validity of that vote. They should then resign from this Commission so the President may find and appoint qualified citizen
commissioners that the law requires. If they don't, it will be clear to all that the vote to approve the ballroom project fix was in.
President Trump's White House ballroom project has been a fiasco from the start. When the White House announced it in July of 2025, the President claimed nothing about the existing White House would be changed. Three months later, he demolished a third of it. Without regard to the law, NCPC was not notified or consulted until the project was underway.
Since Mr. Blair, Mr. Levenbach, and Mr. Scharf worked then, as now, at the White House, I call upon them to answer today to the rest of the Commission what they knew and when they knew it. If they knew the East Wing was going to be demolished before it was, why did they withhold that information from the rest of the NCPC Commission and staff, who under the law should have been advised?
A massive amount of money has flowed into the White House ballroom project from
corporations, billionaires, and an unknown number of secret donors through what a federal judge has called a, quote, Rube Goldberg contraption, end quote, that clearly seems designed to evade congressional and public oversight and shield the donors and recipients of the money from scrutiny. According to news reports, the expectation of those donors is their names will be etched on the White House ballroom as part of the ballroom's brick or stone.
It's outrageous that the administration would engrave the names of corporations with government contracts who gave them checks on the White House like a big, tacky advertising billboard. That's surely within your purview, and I ask NCPC to explicitly prohibit them from doing that. The proposed White House ballroom project before you is wildly out of whack with the existing White House, as you've heard from so many people, experts up and down the spectrum.
It's too tall. It's too bulky. It will block public views. It fails to respect the dignity of America. And it fails to, quote, best promote public health, safety, morals, order, convenience, prosperity, and the general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development, end quote. As many of you will recognize, that is the mission and the objective of this commission according to the National Capital Planning Act, which created the Commission as it exists today.
Since the White House ballroom project fails to meet those objectives, we call on NCPC to reject it, send it back to the drawing board, and ensure that they start over and get it right. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Yeah. I'm going to break in and respond to Mr. Golinger directly since he's challenged my credentials to serve on this commission. First of all, sir, you're just completely wrong. I was appointed because I did have the qualifications necessary to serve on
the Commission, and that's in fact why the President chose me.
In addition to a long career in private practice as an attorney, where I practiced extensively in the area of real estate law, I, also, previously served as policy director to a governor of Missouri, where I was involved in a substantial rewrite of that state's historic preservation tax credit program, which is the largest state historic tax preservation program in the country.
I, also, represented the governor's interests on the Missouri Development Finance Board, the Missouri Housing Development Commission, dealt extensively with real estate tax credit programs all across the state. And I, also, personally was responsible for designating that state's opportunity zones in 2018. So to say that I lack the credentials to serve on this commission is frankly insulting.
Your testimony, as many others have, has far exceeded the scope of jurisdiction of
this commission in terms of the concerns that you've raised. I’d wish you a very good day, and I thank you for appearing here today.
If Mr. Blair and Mr. Levenbach, Commissioners Blair and Levenbach also want to respond as to their qualifications, I assure you that they are every bit as legally entitled to serve on this commission pursuant to the President's appointments as I am. And they can speak for themselves on that front. But that's really all I have to say there.
MR. GOLINGER: I would love to hear the credentials. Mr. Blair presented zero at the first meeting. You did say you were the policy director for the governor, and I looked at your campaign literature when you ran for attorney general. You described that job very differently.
You said that as policy director, you worked to cut taxes, wasteful spending, reduce the burden of state regulations, pass needed tort reform and advance pro-life policy
initiatives. Now you want to characterize that
as planning experience. Now, to that effect CHAIR SCHARF: So you’re saying -MR. GOLINGER: -- you haven't -CHAIR SCHARF: Mr. Golinger, your
time's expired. I'm just going to say, the fact that you would look at campaign literature and say that that is an extensive description or a comprehensive description of my experience as policy director to the governor of a major state, that's frankly absurd.
MR. GOLINGER: No. CHAIR SCHARF: I think we're done here. (Simultaneous speaking.) MR. GOLINGER: -- challenging the
record of someone who's not qualified. And if you are -
| CHAIR SCHARF: | All right. | If you want | |
| to - | |||
| MR. GOLINGER: | -- by all means. | ||
| CHAIR SCHARF: | If want to sue me, I'll |
see you in court, and I think that extends, you
know, that's the end of this issue. If Mister
-if Commissioner Blair, Commissioner Levenbach want to speak to their credentials, we're happy to entertain them at this time. Otherwise, we can move on to the next witness.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Okay. Next we have John Kasper representing the East Wing Restoration Project. John Kasper, you'll have five minutes to provide your testimony. John, you're muted.
MR. KASPER: There we go. So, good afternoon. My name is John Kasper. I am founder and president of East Wing Restoration Project. I'm here today to voice our strong opposition to the White House Oval Project as currently proposed.
I'd like to thank you first for the opportunity to comment on this important project. Whether it's an individual or the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the American public needs to be given the opportunity to offer comments, insight, and
guidance on such projects. As we know, the White House, it's been stated multiple times now, is a public space owned by we, the American people.
Residents are merely temporary guests, thus required by law permission to make modifications to the building, especially at the scale we see here. I'd, also, like to thank Dr. Scott Parker Architects and the National Trust for the comments and more reasonable design alternatives they have submitted for consideration. Their input covers many of the same points I was to cover today, specifically the square foot industry standards they highlighted and the overall symmetry of the White House grounds.
Since I appear here today representing a private nonprofit, I'm not beholden to any special interest, political party, or any individual. Therefore, I can speak candidly. A person can tell just by viewing the White House grounds when east and west wings were added.
The design was purposeful and done with careful consideration of what the White House represents.
When the American flag is presented with other flags, out of honor and respect, it is at the center and is the highest point of the group, and so it should be with the Executive Mansion. In my 30 years as an industrial designer, I've participated in thousands of design reviews. Not a single time do I recall a designer submitting to a client a one-off standalone concept to solve the identified problem, but that is what has been presented to the American public.
There are always multiple concepts and iterations submitted for review. I've recently learned that a similar process has actually been followed here, so I respectfully request that those preliminary plans, also, be made available for public review and public comment.
I believe that everyone present here today, as well as millions of Americans across
the country, deep down really know that this 90000-square-foot proposal is grossly out of scale, disrespectful of the White House, and borderline obscene. Even an undergraduate architecture student would never propose such an out-of-proportion plan.
The structure is so outsized that the elegant symmetry of the roadway loop within the South Lawn had to be deformed to make room for it. The symmetry of the entire parcel, so perfectly laid out by Frederick Law Olmsted, is destroyed. The attempt to solve the problem of inadequate public event space has been lost in the exercise of stroking one man's ego.
Surely, Mr. Baranes, you can do better. Your team can do better. Do you really want this to be your legacy? As so well communicated in the comments presented by Mr. Parker, National Trust, the new East Wing can and should be significantly smaller than this current proposal both in footprint and overall volume. I urge you to give careful thought and
consideration to this input and all of those that have spoken here today.
There is significant refinement that still needs to be done and questions that remain to be answered. I will conclude with some of those questions. If they've been addressed, I again request that information be made available for public review.
Has the appropriate research been conducted to determine realistic office space requirements for the current and future First Ladies and First Gentlemen? Have maintenance and utility costs been analyzed for such an enormous building that will only be utilized a limited number of times a year?
And again referencing Mr. Parker's comments, are the grand staircases actually functional and necessary, or are they just eye candy? Can the oversized south portico be reduced in size or eliminated altogether? And, of course, where will his name appear?
That is not shown anywhere, but we all
know it'll be there. Remember, the East Wing that stood humbly last fall was torn down in a matter of days. The same can be done to this man's monument. So, let's save everybody a lot of time, money, grief, and anger and do this right the first time. Thank you again for this opportunity.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Kasper.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. Next, we'll have Tom Shiner. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MR. SHINER: My name is Tom Shiner. I'm a fellow of the American Institute of Architects and a longtime member of the D.C. chapter of the AIA. After beginning my career as an associate at a DuPont Circle architecture practice, I opened my own firm, Thomas S. Shiner Architect, more than four decades ago. I'm a -- I am licensed to practice architecture in the District of Columbia and in other jurisdictions.
My career is focused on residential
architecture. I've designed dozens of projects with relationships to historic structures in sensitive historic areas. I've presented designs for review here and abroad, including to the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts. I'm qualified to speak as an expert to the NCPC about the proposed addition to the nation's most famous historic residence, the White House.
Before designing a project, architects are trained to study the site. A project's site and context will limit and often dictate what can be built. The size and shape of a site will certainly determine the size and shape of what can be built on it. The predictable daily path of the sun will strongly influence the design.
One of the principles that guide an architect is respect for the existing structure, structures on and around the site. The design of the proposed ballroom does not respect the existing structures on and around the site. At 25 times the size of the East Room that once stood there, it overwhelms the existing historic
structure.
Although it is attached to a residence that is modest in scale, its typology, that of an event hall or a convention scale center, will despoil the residential character of the White House. Having seen a presentation of the proposed design published in The Washington Post, I first noticed how confusingly similar the proposed massing and arched fenestration are to the adjacent neoclassical Treasury building.
The proposed ballroom bears a closer relationship to the 600,000 square foot Treasury building than to the 55,000 square foot residence to which it is attached. Second, the proposed ballroom is so large that it requires introducing a kink in the now symmetrical oval driveway, violating one of the elegant features of the South Lawn of the White House.
To build this ballroom in its current design will be a mistake, in my opinion, ruining the view of the South Portico and the entire White House composition from the Ellipse, the
lovely oval green space to the south and on axis with the portico. If I found myself alone in thinking the proposed design is unbalanced, I would be surprised. Any architect can tell you that the mass of the proposed ballroom -
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Time. Would you like to -
CHAIR SCHARF: You want to -- if you want to conclude your comments in a couple seconds, sir? I think your time's expired, unfortunately.
MR. SHINER: Oh. I'm sorry I ran over. I would like to read one more paragraph, if I may.
CHAIR SCHARF: If you could proceed quickly, sir.
MR. SHINER: Along the way in my career, I've had the good fortune to have lived, worked, and studied in two other capital cities, Copenhagen, Denmark, and Berlin, Germany. I have observed processes by which cities take serious care of historic buildings, distance
planning, and construction. For example, I learned that Berlin requires architects working there to erect full-scale mock-ups of a new public building's facade to elicit public comment about the proposed details and materials.
A presentation of a large sample of the intended building's skin and fenestration, along with plans and views of the project, is required to be made to the public with the intention of testing and making clear the physical and visual impact of the design. Criticism and discussion of the proposed design is invited, with the assumption that alternative solutions may provide improvements on the original.
This expensive, time-consuming step in the approval process is about getting it done right. Architects appreciate this opportunity for review because they know that they have support for the design that is finally built. Thanks for this opportunity. Sorry I went over.
CHAIR SCHARF: No, thank you, Mr.
Shiner.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. And next we'll have Jonathan Herz. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MR. HERZ: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name's Jonathan Herz. As a longtime federal government architect with extensive experience working on historic federal buildings here in Washington, and as a longtime resident of the city, I care deeply about the quality, dignity, and stewardship of our nation's capital.
I urge the Commission to disapprove the proposed White House ballroom project because it's inconsistent with NCPC's goals and legal responsibilities. It would harm both the historic and civic character of the White House. The White House was designed as a statement of republican governance, a dignified executive residence, intentionally in contrast to the palatial homes of European princes and tyrants.
A 90,000-square-foot ballroom is
entirely a different character, less presidential residence than convention center. It would distort both the scale and the symbolism of the nation's chief executive's home. As Rebecca Miller mentioned, there's no functional need for this project.
Only a few blocks away stands the Andrew Mellon Auditorium, a magnificent executive branch facility seating 1000 guests. If the administration needs a grand space for official events, that building already fulfills the requirement. If greater connection to the executive is desired, perhaps it could be renamed to honor our presidents.
Duplicating such a hall so near the White House contradicts the Commission's longstanding principles of efficient coordinated planning. NCPC's legal review authority over new construction projects on federal property within the National Capital Region, including the White House grounds, must be meaningfully maintained. For decades, major White House
projects have been reviewed here before construction for consistency with the federal elements of the Comprehensive Plan, massing, height, site design, security, circulation, and above all, relationship to the historic segment.
In scale and bulk -- overwhelm the site and block L'Enfant's intended connection to the Capitol. Architectural detailing is mismatched, using Corinthian orders where Ionic were appropriate and a grand staircase to a landing with no entrance, a supercilious design gesture for what should be the nation's most dignified address.
Although the White House is exempt from mandatory Section 106 procedures, good design practice should still follow its principles: identifying character-defining and historic features, minimizing harm, and ensuring context-sensitive outcomes. In bypassing those steps, this proposal disregards federal interests, the critical public viewsheds surrounding the White House, the coherent landscape of President's
Park, and the symbolic civic dignity of the Executive Mansion.
The White House grounds envisioned by George Washington and Pierre L'Enfant express democracy through restraint and order. A project of this magnitude would betray that founding vision. For all those reasons, functional redundancy, inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and harm to the historical and symbolic dignity of the Executive Mansion, I respectfully urge the Commission to disapprove this proposal. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Herz.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. So at this time, we would ask if the Commission have any questions for the last four witnesses, John Golinger, John Kasper, Tom Shiner, or Jonathan Herz.
CHAIR SCHARF: Do any commissioners have any questions for these witnesses? Hearing and seeing none, we'll thank those witnesses. Meghan, you'd mentioned to me earlier that we're
going to need to take a break at some point in these proceedings to reset our video to ensure that it's properly recorded. Would now -
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes.
CHAIR SCHARF: -- be the time to do that or should we proceed with another set of witnesses?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: I think if we proceed with another set of witnesses -
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: -- and then we'll have, I think, all of the witnesses who have shown up thus far. And so, then we can take a recess to try and see if anyone else is going to join that then we had to skip over initially.
CHAIR SCHARF: That sounds perfect. So let's -- if you'd call the next witness up, that would be great.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes, the next group is Stephanie Beninato, Lawrence Wisniewski, Jamilah Way, and Diane Marlon. Stephanie Beninato, you have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. BENINATO: Thank you very much. I'm Stephanie Beninato. I live in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I have a PhD in history. I'm a professional historian who's worked in historic preservation for over 45 years.
I am strongly opposed to the addition of the ballroom to the White House because it violates several historic preservation standards and ignores architectural standards, as well. And to say that it's part of the campus, in fact, to be accurate, it is an addition to the White House despite the fact that it has a colonnade or hallway that gives it some distance.
As stated by others, the mass height and choice of architectural details overwhelms the original structure, which is the White House, the People's House, and on the south side, it is quite proud -- or in front of the White House, blocking the view of the White House from the US Capitol.
This visual axis was an important
planning element, as people have mentioned, and a symbolic reminder of the balance between the executive and legislative branches, which I think we actually need to keep in mind today. And I do appreciate because the south -- I mean, East Wing was taken down without following the rule of law; the Arts Commission approved the plan, the final plan again, not following procedural rules.
This commission is at least following procedural rules, but from comments made, I'm wondering if people's minds are really open to the comments that are being made today. The proposed portico is 160 percent larger than the White House portico. The height of the second level of the proposed ballroom exceeds that of the White House, making it read as if it's more important than the White House itself.
The use of Corinthian columns is much more pretentious and attention-drawing than the Ionic columns on the White House and the Treasury Building. And again, according to
historic preservation standards, this addition should be compatible with the White House without overwhelming it, and landscaping and/or pedestrian views are not really part of your consideration. What is part of your consideration is the building design plan itself and how it is compatible with the original historic structure that is the White House.
The size of the building is out of proportion, and many of the alleged needs could be met by modifying the design or deleting them, such as, mentioned, the 40,000 square foot portico that goes nowhere with the outside steps that are not ADA accessible. And there's no doorways there. The -- and it blocks the -- and that is really what's blocking the view from the Capitol Building, and it also interferes with the gardens designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, who is arguably the most important landscape architect in US history.
The ballroom, as mentioned, is oversized. The architectural standards are 10
to 15 square feet per person. This is 50
percent larger than the highest size -
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Time.
MS. BENINATO: -- required. I just have one more. If I could just finish, I would appreciate it. The kitchen itself is two and a half times what is needed by architectural standards to serve 1,000 people. And if you remove the portico, decrease the size of the ballroom and the kitchen, and put the kitchen underground, you could save -- you could reduce this by 38 percent, and it would be much more in keeping. I urge you to require a smaller size design. Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Beninato.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Next, we have Lawrence Wisniewski. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MR. WISNIEWSKI: The members of this commission, thank you for allowing me to speak before you and to allow my comments. My name is Lawrence Wisniewski. I'm a retired retail
clerk. The White House is the people's house. It does not belong to whoever the current resident is.
The architects who planned and laid out the city along with its buildings had a vision that was both grand and simple. The trifecta of government, legislative, judicial, and executive, have their own edifices that represent the power within and yet demonstrate collectively each branch as co-equal.
The White House was not built to be an opulent 17th-century Palace of Versailles. It was built to serve as a simple, yet elegant home for the president and family to live. Additionally, it is the place to conduct the business and duties of the executive branch.
I do not deny that improvements and upgrades are necessary for buildings over time. Protocols are in place to ensure that improvements are made in accordance with the law and best practices to ensure the preservation and historic significance of the buildings being
remodeled or renovated.
According to the -- according to multiple news reports, no permit was issued, nor was public discussion prior to the destruction of the East Wing. It is a clear violation of the very protocols. The proposed ballroom design will dwarf existing historic structural, remove sight lines that are part of the plan of the original designers.
It is a gaudy design that does not represent our country. It is an attempt to create some sort of physical legacy of the leader -- the current resident, I should say. We the people do not need these kinds of legacies left by our leaders. We want legacies left to the benefit of all the people of this great nation. As time moves forwards, monuments, structures, and statues can and should be built to honor leaders and those who served our country in positive ways.
Current leaders should not be allowed to glorify themselves by constructing such
monuments. I respectfully ask the Commission to
reject this design. Thank you for your time.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, sir.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. Next, we have Jamilah Way. You will have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. WAY: Hello. Thank you for having me. I am -- I happen to be an attorney, a planning attorney, but I'm here as a citizen. And every time I see the images of the White House as it currently sits, my stomach is -- it turns. This historic place. There's been a blatant disregard and destruction of federal property.
And in this development, there's no consideration for how the site was before they destroyed it. I can understand, as everyone has said, the concept of improving and creating a ballroom, but I don't understand why we can't consider putting it underground to preserve the open park concept that George Washington and the designers planned for the space.
It's supposed to be a park. And to have a building that protrudes into the setback and into the open space up to the drive is just mind-boggling. I don't understand the goal. I don't understand the use of the building. It seems to exceed a ballroom.
So I, really would ask the Commissioners to really think it through and to consider that there should still be a restoration component to the destruction of part of the historic building, as well as preserving the original design and intention of that space and what the founders created, and the fact that it is a national landmark, that property, and consider that in this whole process. It really breaks my heart every time I look at it.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Way.
MS. WAY: Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Next, we have Diane Marlin. You have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. MARTIN: Good afternoon,
Commissioners. My name is Diane Marlin. I'm a retired mayor from Urbana, Illinois, a regular visitor to Washington, D.C., and I last visited the White House in January of 2023. My comments today are based on information provided by NCPC and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Like many others, I believe this project is far too large for the site. The design has three times the mass of the iconic White House. It blocks the sight line between the Capitol and White House along Pennsylvania Avenue, and it disrupts historic landscape design. In one fell swoop, it breaks the historic connection between the legacy of Hoban, L'Enfant, and Olmsted.
The good news is this project can be reduced in size and scale without compromising any of the proposed functions. We've heard the ballroom and kitchen areas are significantly oversized based on industry standards. The ballroom interior ceiling height is 40 feet
tall, and other areas in the structure have ceilings as high as 23 feet. That's over two stories.
Again, the size and scale of the project can be reduced while still maintaining the desired function. We've been asked to evaluate the East Wing, and a lot of time actually was spent today on looking at the East Wing project as it is framed by trees and shrubs and looking at it from street view from the north and south.
That's because this design depends on landscaping to hide its bulk from pedestrian views. Now, we all know that the true measure of character is what you do when nobody's watching. And I believe the true measure of the East Wing project is what it looks like as built without the trees and bushes hiding it.
This project should be scaled appropriately and in proportion rather than use landscaping to mask the disproportionate and unbalanced design. And finally, I'm concerned
about the colossal soft portico, terrace, and staircase. They really do appear to have no purpose other than to add to the mass of the structure.
They should be removed, and they could be removed without any significant damage to this design. The ballroom floor, as we heard, is 12 feet above the terrace and the portico, and the kitchen is below it. There's no internal connection between the interior rooms and the portico.
There are no functioning doors from the ballroom to the soft portico, and those 24 massive Corinthian columns will block much of the view from the soft ballroom window. The -and finally that, I think the staircase is 40 feet wide. It's a staircase to nowhere. This entire feature could be removed as was pointed out by Mr. Baranes today that it was -- it's an aesthetic decision, and I think the proper decision would just be to remove it. That would greatly reduce the mass and the imbalance in
this overall project.
So in summary, I urge you to send this back to the drawing board. Do not be in a rush to approve this on April 2nd. Reduce the mass, footprint and scale of the project, resize the ballroom and kitchen to industry standards, rearrange things internally, remove the fake south portico, and that could reduce overall mass by up to 40 percent as was estimated by the National Trust. More as -- as importantly, this is an opportunity to preserve L'Enfant's sight lines between the Capitol and the White House.
CHAIR SCHARF: That's time.
MS. MARTIN: To defer -- I just have a couple more, to defer to Hoban's elegant White House design and maintain Olmsted's visions for the grounds. Please prioritize accessibility for people of all ages and abilities. Take the time to get this right. Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Martin.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: And next we have Ellen
Shadle. You will have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MS. SHADLE: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commission Chair and members. My name is Ellen Shadle, and I am speaking in opposition to the proceeding of the proposed ballroom in response to the how and why of the ballroom. The hows and the whys must be addressed to determine if the what, the ballroom itself, is justified, and only when the what has been justified is a procedure to commence.
Page 1 of the FONSI states that the justification for this ballroom is to meet presidential priorities for capacity and protect the historic integrity and cultural landscape of the White House. The word presidential is not capitalized here, so the priorities alluded to are not those of the current president, but those I will attribute to Frank Lanz and refer to him as the author of the FONSI. With that, Mr. Lanz does not articulate what priorities are presidential in nature and how those priorities
were determined.
He also does not explain or describe the historic integrity and cultural landscape of the White House that is mentioned. These are distinctions that are relevant and necessary in evaluating the asserted justification for and purpose of the ballroom. Without presidential priorities being defined and without knowing the criteria applied to historic integrity and cultural landscape, it is impossible to make a thorough and precise assessment.
Additionally, on page 1 of the FONSI is a heading of Deconstruction and Design. Let's be clear, the East Wing was not deconstructed. There -- while there is no standardized definition of deconstruction, definitions include language such as careful disassembly and creating minimal waste.
This is not what happened to the East Wing. The East Wing was demolished, and for thoroughness and precision, transparency and accountability, it shall be identified and
referred to accordingly. To refer to the demolition of the East Wing as a deconstruction deflects ownership of the demolition from those who approved and managed it.
This suggests that they are not proud of their role in the demolition and choose a different and inaccurate word to diminish their guilt in how the East Wing was deleted from the landscape. The why of the FONSI offers an explanation, not a justification. So, the why of the FONSI does not hold up to challenge.
As for how the actions were to have been taken in response to the needs or desires regarding the East Wing, the how was determined long before President Trump was president the first time or currently. It is not for the president of the United States nor any member of this commission to dismiss, ignore, usurp, or disregard the procedure. It is empirically documented that the decisions regarding how to repair, restore, renovate, or replace the East Wing have not followed the procedural
requirements in place.
While no process is perfect and without friction or barriers, at the time of any proposed action, the current process is to be followed. To the extent that established procedural requirements were disregarded, this warrants those who felt they were exempt from those requirements to be held accountable. Disregarding regulatory or procedural requirements impacts public trust and the social contract we hold each other to.
There is much conversation about the abandonment of social and political norms as a result of President Trump's unwillingness to acknowledge, let alone adhere to, not only norms but established policies, procedures, and laws. That has -- conversation has admittedly been blunted by repetition.
I'm almost done. To that end, and particularly to the presidential appointees of this commission, as much as President Trump exercises baffling entitlement to swat at
regulations like an annoying insect, you also possess the entitlement to willfully recognize and adhere to the procedural regulations required for a project like this, in appreciation for the larger ecosystem in which they are necessary for our nation's civic health. Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: So with that, I would ask if the Commission has any questions for the last five witnesses: Stephanie Beninato, Lawrence Wisniewski, Jamilah Way, Diane Marlin, or Ellen Shadle.
CHAIR SCHARF: Do any commissioners have questions for any of these witnesses? Well, then I would thank all of the witnesses. Ms. Shadle has a remarkable talent to speak extremely quickly. I found that very impressive. And I'd like to thank you guys for taking the time out of your busy schedules to testify before this commission. Madam Secretary, would this be a good time for us to take a quick recess before we continue
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes, it would be.
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay.
PARTICIPANT: Yay.
CHAIR SCHARF: With that, let's take a 20-minute recess and reconvene at about 4:20 if that works for the other members of the Commission and, of course, NCPC staff. And -
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Excellent.
CHAIR SCHARF: Everybody okay with that?
COMMISIONER COZART: Excuse me. A logistical question. We just go off camera during the 20 minutes, or we get off and rejoin?
CHAIR SCHARF: I -
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Just go off camera and mute yourself.
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay.
COMMISIONER COZART: Understood.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: And for those who are watching on the live stream, when you come back at 4:20, you will need to refresh your screen.
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay. Thank you,
Meghan. We will see you all in a bit. Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 4:00 p.m. and resumed at
4:20 p.m.)
MS. HOTTEL-COX: And we are live streaming now, so Mr. Chairman, we can come back into session.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary. I believe there is a quorum present. So, we'll proceed back, start off where we left off. Madam Secretary, if you could call the next public witnesses forward.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. Just making sure that they are in the room. So, the first witness that we'll hear from is Chris Brown. Chris, you have three minutes to provide your testimony.
MR. BROWN: Can you -- hello? Oh, yeah. Okay. I'm Chris Brown. I'm representing myself. I'm here to register my objection to the East Wing modernization project purely for
reasons of aesthetics.
The ballroom, if built, would be twice the size of the White House and would obscure views of the Executive Mansion from many angles. Over the past years, I've seen many changes to the White House grounds which offend me. Let me name just a few.
The green prep tents on the north lawn, the largely unused handicap ramp on the north steps, the sheer size and number of guard booths, the 13-foot high fence, the two huge new flag poles which are usually seen on used car lots. These are examples of unnecessary visual clutter that have been added under various administrations without much objection.
These additions pale in size and scope to the ballroom that is being discussed today. Consider the fact that the Truman Balcony is barely noticeable and went through many reviews. As someone once said, If you have a complaint, bring us a solution. Well, I have a solution.
If President Trump wants his ballroom,
he can have it. Like the Capitol Visitor Center, put it underground. This solution preserves the integrity of the White House grounds while giving the president the space for entertaining he desires, and he can have any size ballroom as long as it's underground. I'm sure the objection to this would be that it's too late to start over.
Well, whose fault would that be? The president should have submitted the plans before construction started. Since this addition will live forever, it is well worth the effort and added expense to get it right now. I urge the Commissions -- Commissioners to reject this plan, and I urge President Trump to bury the ballroom.
I would just like to add that when it comes to decorating anything, the National Mall, the White House, Washington, D.C., always remember, less is more. And I thank the Commissioners for their time.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Brown.
We appreciate you being with us.
MR. BROWN: Thank you.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: And next we have Roberto Barreta -- Barreto. You are representing Worldwide Projects, and you have five minutes to provide your testimony.
MR. MANZANO: Hello. Good afternoon, Commissioners and fellow Americans. We are here, Roberto Barreto and Antonio Manzano from Caracas, Venezuela, with all our hearts open to you. We understand that our vision may be seen beyond your objectives, but it is very important to magnify the purposes.
We recognize that the new age is spiritual. Our vision is to offer a futuristic proposal to the marvelous teamwork you lead to create a finishing of the East Wing of the White House with an architectonic platonic volume, enhancing the Palladian architecture with a freedom dome. An icosahedron with sides made up of lead diaphragms which surround a transparent platform where citizens live a 360 degrees
extra-sensory experience in which guests will enjoy the scene to be presented, impacting the spirit of the audience.
The freedom room will be below the platform. It is important to note that this volume will generate a global and cosmic alignment and orientation with a universal energy network. There will be a torch in the center, symbol of enlightenment, wisdom and knowledge that will always support freedom. All service areas will be underground.
The urban planning of Washington, D.C. Is ideal for updating its iconic culture with its streets offering marvelous perspectives. All major cities in the world have monuments representing their identity. The White House deserves to have the best one, a number one.
It is important to note that the energy project aims to balance the resonance of the frequency, vibrate in the right way to help us raise our consciousness and maintain healing standards and wellbeing. All men of goodwill
will feel inspired visiting Freedom Dome to reach higher goals for humankind.
Thank you all from Caracas, Venezuela, Roberto Barreto, the architect of this project, and myself, Antonio Manzano. Thank you and God bless you.
MR. BARRETO: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, and thanks for the (audio interference).
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you for joining us today.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Mr. Chairman, that concludes all of the witnesses that we have. So if the Commission has any questions for these two witnesses, Chris Brown or Roberto Barreto.
CHAIR SCHARF: Do any Commissioners have any questions for these -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I'd like to ask -the model that was shown wasn't that clear to me. Could they give us -- show a little better what they had in mind for this dome? I'm not -
just curious.
CHAIR SCHARF: I think that's a question for Mr. Barreto and your colleague.
MR. BARRETO: Okay.
CHAIR SCHARF: Commissioner Dixon would like to know a little bit more about what you're proposing.
MR. BARRETO: Okay. Our purpose is to connect energetically -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I understand that part, but what I'm trying to get at -- I see the dome, but where will the people -- where would people be placed? Where would they live? Where would they eat?
MR. BARRETO: In the platform, in the middle. It's a transparent platform, and partially it will be underground too. So, all the services that you see on the isogrid on this volume will be LED screens where you can project any scene that you want.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Okay.
MR. BARRETO: -- with the current
technology.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: But the eating facility would be underground, where the people will be fed underground. The seating space would be underground.
MR. BARRETO: You want to see the underground?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I said the seating space would be underground.
MR. BARRETO: No, the seating space will be in the middle of the volume.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BARRETO: In the middle.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Thank you. Thank you.
MR. BARRETO: And underground you can have projections, as well.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Thank you.
MR. MANZANO: Thank you, sir.
MR. BARRETO: Thank you very much.
MR. MANZANO: God bless you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you. Do any other
Commissioners have -- I'm sorry, I keep choking on something. Do any other Commissioners have questions for either of these two presenters? Hearing none, Meghan, do we have any other witnesses who have signed up to testify publicly at this time?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: We do not. None of the other witnesses have joined the meeting.
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay. Well, in that case, we'd like to thank Mr. Brown, Mr. Barreto, and your colleague. We do have a motion on the table that Commissioner Dixon made at the start of these proceedings with respect to preliminary and, excuse me, preliminary and final approval of this project. I would propose that at this time we hold that motion over -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Right.
CHAIR SCHARF: until the beginning of our next meeting on April 2nd and take it up for final consideration at that time. I don't know if we need a vote on that proposal, Meghan. You're our resident parliamentarian.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. We will need someone to make a motion to table the original motion and a second, and then I'll take the vote by roll call.
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I move to table it.
CHAIR SCHARF: Hearing Commissioner Dixon's motion, do we have a second?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Second.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. With that, I think we should proceed to a roll call vote.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion to table the original motion to approve the East Wing Modernization Project was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Vice Chairman Levenbach. Commissioner Cozart?
COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Schaefer?
COMMISSIONER SCHAEFER: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? Commissioner Argo?
COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman Levenbach?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf?
CHAIR SCHARF: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? Commissioner Ingrassia?
COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash?
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: It's Commissioner Mendelson, yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Mendelson?
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: It's okay. We play tag team.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes, ma'am.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner McGowan?
COMMISSIONER MCGOWAN: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: So with that, Mr. Chairman, the motion to table Commissioner Dixon's motion regarding the East Wing Modernization Project until the April meeting passes.
CHAIR SCHARF: Awesome. Thank you, Meghan.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: I believe that Commissioner Stidham had a question.
CHAIR SCHARF: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Chairman, I just wanted, for the public that is listening, should we speak to the discussion that we're having in the April meeting and whether or not there is public comment associated with that? It may not be clearly understood.
CHAIR SCHARF: I -- Meghan, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe that we've just
essentially exhausted public testimony on this motion or on this decision item.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. That's correct. So that at this point, the public option for public comment and for public testimony has been closed on this item, so it will just be at the April meeting for the Commission's consideration and deliberations.
CHAIR SCHARF: The way I envision this proceeding is that when we reconvene in April, we'll have a discussion amongst ourselves as commissioners. Obviously that'll be, you know, it's a public meeting, but we'll have a discussion ourselves on this item. Obviously, each commissioner will be given time to speak, and we can all express our views, and then we'll proceed to a final vote on the motion that's on the table, which is preliminary and final approval of the ballroom. Is that -- I think I'm reading this correctly, Meghan. Is that your understanding, as well?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes, that's my
understanding, as well.
CHAIR SCHARF: Perfect. Well, with that, I believe we've -- oh, sorry, Commissioner Stidham.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: No, that's okay. I understood it as such, but I think there was some confusion by the public, so I appreciate you addressing it here so there is -- it's clear.
CHAIR SCHARF: Perfect. Well, with that, I believe we've exhausted our agenda for today. As I said as we reconvened, I very much appreciate the Commissioners who have stuck with us through what's been certainly my longest NCPC meeting since I joined the Commission a little over a year ago. I think we've heard some interesting testimony today. I applaud the project team Shalom Baranes in particular for the presentation that they gave earlier. I think it was actually a really fascinating conversation about the nature of the spaces that we're dealing with here and this plan in
particular. And with that, if there are no further comments or questions from members of the Commission, I think we can proceed to adjourn. Do any other Commissioners want to be heard at this time? Hearing none, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all, and I'll see you on April 2nd, if not before.
COMMISSIONER ARGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Argo.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 4:37 p.m.)
C E R T I F I C A T E This is to certify that the foregoing transcript was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under my direction; further, that said transcript is a true and accurate record of the proceedings; and that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to this action in which this matter was taken; and further that I am not a relative nor an employee of any of the parties nor counsel employed by the parties, and I am not financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the action.
Victoria Simonyak