NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION
+ + + + +
COMMISSION MEETING
+ + + + +
OPEN SESSION
+ + + + +
THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 2026
+ + + + +
The meeting convened in the Commission Hearing Room at 401 9th Street NW, Washington, D.C., at 1:00 p.m., William Scharf, Chair, presiding.
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:
WILLIAM SCHARF, Chair, Presidential Appointee (At-Large) STUART LEVENBACH, Vice Chair, Presidential
Appointee MICHAEL BLAIR, Presidential Appointee LINDA ARGO, Mayoral Appointee EVAN CASH, Office of the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia ANITA COZART, Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia* PHIL MENDELSON, Office of the Chairman of the
Council of the District of Columbia ARRINGTON DIXON, Mayoral Appointee RYAN GIACHETTI, U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Accountability* WILLIAM HENDERSON, U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs* ROBERT G. SALESSE, Department of Defense TAMMY STIDHAM, Department of the Interior
EDWARD FORST, General Services Administration
KRISTI TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS, General Services Administration
NCPC STAFF PRESENT:
MARCEL C. ACOSTA, Executive Director MEGHAN HOTTEL-COX, General Counsel & Secretariat LAURA SHIPMAN KARIN SCHIERHOLD MICHAEL WEIL LEE WEBB JAMIE HERR
*Present via video teleconference
| AGENDA | ||
|---|---|---|
| AGENDA ITEM | PAGE | |
| 1 | Commission Roll Call | 5 |
| 2 | Elect a Vice Chair | 7 |
| 3 | Approve Third Member of the Executive Committee | 10 |
| 4 | Report of the Chairman | 13 |
| 5 | Report of the Executive Director | 15 |
| 6 | Legislative Update | 16 |
| 7 | UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM – No Presentation | 17 |
| 7A | 8733 Executive Residence, White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC East Wing Modernization Project | 17 |
| 8 | CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM – No Presentation | 71 |
| 8A | MP215 United States Department of Defense, Department of the Navy 4251 Suitland Road, Suitland, Maryland – Naval Support Facility Suitland - Draft Area Development Plan and Transportation Management Plan Updates | 75 |
| 9 | ACTION ITEMS – With Presentation | |
| 9A | 8721 Mayor of the District of Columbia, 2400 East Capitol Street, NE, Washington, DC – New Stadium at RFK Campus | 76 |
AGENDA (continued)
AGENDA ITEM PAGE
9B 7509 National Capital Planning Commission, Pennsylvania Avenue between 3rd and 15th Streets, NW, Washington, DC – A New Plan for Pennsylvania Avenue 130
9C 8754 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Arlington, Virginia – George Washington Memorial Parkway Vista Management Plan 172
9D 8763 Executive Office of the President 472 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC White House Visitor Screening Facility 203
9E 8732 Smithsonian Institution, 3001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC – National Zoological Park Construct New Arabian Leopard Habitat 239
9F 8753 United States Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, Magazine Road, SW, Washington, DC Naval Research Laboratory P-250 Biomolecular Science and Synthetic Biology Laboratory 257
Adjourn
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
1:05 p.m.
CHAIR SCHARF: Good afternoon and welcome to the National Capital Planning Commission's April 2nd, 2026 open session.
COMMISSION ROLL CALL
CHAIR SCHARF: First, Madam Secretary, can you please take the roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes.
Commissioner Cozart?
(No response.)
Commissioner Salesse?
(No response.)
Commissioner Stidham?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Here.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo?
COMMISSIONER ARGO: Here.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman
Levenbach? VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIR SCHARF: Here.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Administrator Forst? COMMISSIONER FORST: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? (No response.) MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Mendelson? (No response.) Commissioner Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Giachetti? COMMISSIONER GIACHETTI: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Marcel Acosta,
Executive Director, and Diane Sullivan, current Planning Division Director, are also in the meeting.
And with that, we have a quorum. CHAIR SCHARF: Noting the presence of a quorum, I'd like to call this meeting to order. This meeting is livestreamed and will be available, as is our custom, in a few days on
the NCPC's website.
If there are no objections from Commissioners present, the agenda as posted is adopted as the order of business.
And now, let's all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance.) ELECT A VICE CHAIR
CHAIR SCHARF: At each April meeting, we elect a Vice Chairman, and the Commission also approves a third member of our Executive Committee.
Let's start with the election of a Vice Chairman.
Stuart Levenbach has been serving as Vice Chairman since last year. I'd like to ask Stuart if he's willing to continue serving as Vice Chairman.
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: I'd be happy to do it.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Stuart.
With that, is there a motion to approve
Stuart Levenbach as the Vice? COMMISSIONER DIXON: So moved. CHAIR SCHARF: So moved. Do we have a second on the floor? COMMISSIONER FORST: Second. CHAIR SCHARF: Is there anyone who
wishes to be heard on this item? (No response.) Hearing no one, can the secretary
please confirm the motion and the second, and
take a vote by roll call? MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Commissioner
Dixon and seconded by Administrator Forst. With that, Commissioner Salesse? (No response.) 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 Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Administrator Forst? COMMISSIONER FORST: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Giachetti? COMMISSIONER GIACHETTI: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion passes. CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you. This motion is carried. Congratulations, Vice Chairman Stuart
Levenbach. Would you like to say anything? VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Well, I'd just
say it's been a pleasure already in the nine months or so I've been working with other Commissioners here. And especially being in Maryland for the past now 20 years and going to so many of these places personally, it's really nice to be able to have a role in what it looks like and how it's planned.
So, thank you very much. CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. APPROVE THIRD MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
CHAIR SCHARF: The next item on the agenda is for the Commission to approve the third member of our three-member Executive Committee.
Commissioner Arrington Dixon, who I believe is our longest-serving member on the Commission, has been serving as the third member of the Executive Committee for the last -certainly, as long as I've been on the Executive Committee.
Is there a motion to approve
Commissioner Arrington Dixon as the third member
of our Executive Committee? COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: So moved. CHAIR SCHARF: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ARGO: I'll second. CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you. Madam Secretary, could you please take
the vote by roll call? MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Commissioner
Stidham and seconded by Commissioner Argo. Commissioner Salesse? (No response.) 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 Blair?
COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Administrator Forst?
COMMISSIONER FORST: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Thank you very much, and yes.
(Laughter.)
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Giachetti?
COMMISSIONER GIACHETTI: Yes.
CHAIR SCHARF: I believe this motion is carried unanimously.
Congratulations, Commissioner Dixon. It's been a pleasure serving with you and I'm looking forward to continuing to serve with you on the Executive Committee.
Are there any comments or statements you would like to make?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Not at this time.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Your brevity is appreciated in this matter.
Speaking of which, given the long agenda -- sorry. The next item on the agenda is the report of the Chairman. Given the long agenda, I'll keep my report this month very -
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIR SCHARF: Oh, sorry.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Apologies. It seems we're having technical difficulties.
CHAIR SCHARF: Okay.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: If we can pause for just a moment while we get that sorted?
CHAIR SCHARF: Sure.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 1:10 p.m. and resumed at
1:13 p.m.) REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN
CHAIR SCHARF: I'll keep my Chairman's report short. I'll be discussing the East Wing
modernization issue on our agenda in more detail
when we get there on the agenda.
A couple of housekeeping notes.
I would like to welcome Bob Salesse with the Department of War, serving in the Department's ex officio seat here. He's joining us for our first meeting. We are very, very happy to have him.
Welcome, Bob. We're looking forward to working with you.
I would also like to congratulate Commissioner Blair on the birth of, I believe, his fourth child on Monday. I think it really shows his dedication to the NCPC that he has abandoned his wife and large family to join us for what promises to be a barnburner meeting.
I would also like to report on a delegated item that I took action on this month. Certain authorities were delegated to me by the Commission on March 6th, 2025.
I approved the transfer of jurisdiction of lands earlier this month from the National
Park Service to the District of Columbia, Department of Transportation. The transferred issue is for two areas of land currently under the jurisdiction of NPS within Anacostia Park. The transfers will allow DDOT to reconstruct the existing Anacostia Avenue Bridge over the former Pepco station cooling water inlet with two 12foot travel lanes and a new 10-foot-wide sidewalk.
REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CHAIR SCHARF: With that, we'll move on to agenda item 5, which is the report of the Executive Director Marcel Acosta.
MR. ACOSTA: Yeah, thank you, Chair Scharf, and good afternoon.
I just have one item today, but we bid farewell to Urban Planner Brittany Drakeford, who joined NCPC in 2022 and served with us for four years. Brittany served as NCPC's representative to the D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment and contributed to the Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful Initiative, the Comprehensive Plan
Update, Commemoration Planting, and our Internship Program. We thank Brittany for her many contributions to the agency and wish her the best as she completes her doctoral dissertation in urban and regional planning at the University of Maryland. And I look forward to calling her Dr. Brittany soon.
You have my written reports in your packets, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Marcel.
Do any Commissioners have any questions for our Executive Director?
(No response.)
I will just echo Marcel's sentiments wishing Brittany best of luck as she concludes
-hopefully, concludes -- her doctorate, and thank her for her service to this Commission. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
CHAIR SCHARF: Agenda item 6 is our legislative update from our secretary and esteemed general counsel Meghan Hottel-Cox.
Meghan?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
While there has been some movement on relevant legislation this month, none of it is time-sensitive. So, given the length of today's agenda, I will provide a detailed update on pending legislation to the Commission next month. But I'm happy to answer any questions, if Commissioners have any.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Meghan. Do any Commissioners have questions or comments for Meghan at this time? (No response.) UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM
CHAIR SCHARF: Seeing none, we'll proceed to agenda item 7, which is our unfinished business from our last meeting.
8733 EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE, WHITE HOUSE, 1600
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC EAST
WING MODERNIZATION PROJECT
CHAIR SCHARF: You may recall that,
when we closed our last meeting in March, we had a pending motion on the floor, which was a motion to approve preliminary and final site and building plans for the East Wing Modernization Project. That motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Schaefer, and unanimously tabled for consideration at today's meeting.
Before we get started, I do want to address Judge Leon's preliminary injunction in the lawsuit brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation regarding this project. As I read that injunction -- which is, I should say, stayed for the next two weeks -- which also includes ample exclusions to allow for some continued construction on the site, that order really does not impact our action here today. The NCPC is not a party to that lawsuit. The injunction doesn't speak to the NCPC review process. From my perspective, we have a project before us. We've been asked to review it, and that's really our job here today.
And if there's no further objection or if there's no further desire to comment on Judge Leon's order, we'll pass that and continue our consideration of the East Wing Modernization Project at this time.
The second note I would have before we begin our deliberations on this subject, as the Commission may be aware, or as the Commission is aware, after our March meeting, there were a number of updates to that project. Most notably, the project applicants have now eliminated the stairs adjacent to the South Portico of the proposed ballroom, and have also modified the southwest corner stair to include a switchback.
NCPC staff provided a brief addendum explaining the changes to the Commission yesterday, which is also posted on our website.
Overall, the layout, other than those two modifications, is not substantially different than what we previously considered. And I will say that the proposed revisions
actually do reflect a lot of the feedback that the project applicants heard from NCPC at that meeting.
NCPC staff is of the opinion that this constitutes a significant improvement to the project which will help preserve the hierarchy of the south elevation of the Executive Residence and just generally improve the viewsheds, and I'd say symbolic -- I'm trying to pick my words carefully here -- the symbolic nature of the South Portico of the White House as it currently stands.
Therefore, before we move into deliberation on this project, I'd like to move for an amendment to the original motion that we currently have on the floor by suggesting that we add the following to the Commission action here, as suggested in the staff addendum, which was previously circulated.
And that addition is that we note that the applicant has updated the project design to eliminate the stairs extending from the South
Portico and modify the stairs at the southwest corner of the project to include a switchback, and that the staff supports the proposed project updates, particularly the removal of the South Portico stair, which will help reinforce the south elevation of the Executive Mansion as the primary facade.
With that being my motion, I would ask at this time for a second.
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Second.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach.
Is there any discussion on this item or questions on this item before we proceed to voting on this amendment to the EDR?
This is, obviously, not the vote or deliberations on the project as a whole, but merely on this amendment to the EDR.
(No response.)
Seeing no questions or comments, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the amendment, motion, and second, and take the vote by roll
call? MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The amendment motion was made by
Chairman Scharf and seconded by Vice Chairman
Levenbach. Commissioner Salesse? (No response.) 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 Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Administrator Forst? COMMISSIONER FORST: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Mendelson?
(No response.)
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Giachetti?
Commissioner Giachetti?
COMMISSIONER GIACHETTI: Yes. Sorry.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you.
The amended motion carries.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary.
With that, I'll now open it up to the Commission for discussion on the amended motion to approve preliminary and final site and building plans for the East Wing Modernization Project with the language we just added incorporated into the EDR.
I would actually like to start discussion today.
And I would like to start off just by
reading some relevant press clippings.
First, from The Washington Post, "This attempt to modernize the White House has destroyed its historic value."
Second, from The New York Times, "A sacrifice of history for convenience."
Also, from The Times, "Extravagance for a public building."
And lastly, from The Telegraph, "A prioritization of grandeur over the needs of ordinary citizens."
Now, none of these quotes relate to the ballroom project now before us.
The first of these was about Teddy Roosevelt's construction of the West Wing.
The second was about the Nixon era construction of the press room in the West Colonnade.
The third was actually about Chester A. Arthur's 1880s renovations of the Executive Mansion.
And the fourth was about Andrew
Jackson's construction of the North Portico to the Executive Mansion in 1830.
Criticism and "sky is falling" pronouncements from so-called historic preservationists and their allies in the press are, therefore, nothing new to the history of the White House. While some might wish for history and the world to stand still, the fact of the matter is that the White House complex has constantly evolved to meet the programmatic needs of the federal government and the Office of the President which it houses.
And it is in that context in which I believe we must now review the ballroom project that is before this Commission. I believe that, in time, this ballroom will be considered every bit as much of a national treasure as the other key components of the White House. And I believe that, in time, the Nation and successive Presidents of both parties and all political stripes long into the future will be grateful to President Trump for having initiated and brought
this project into being.
I would like to speak to our process on this particular project. As Chairman of this Commission, which has a lineage and history dating back over a century, I feel very strongly about the fact that the work that we do is important, and I feel that we have been unfairly slighted in the press and otherwise for the way we've gone about reviewing this particular project.
The NCPC has a professional staff that I have come to know and recognize it's doing consistently exceptional work, as they, and we as a Commission, go about our job protecting and preserving the aspects of the Capital Region that make it a particular public treasure for our great Nation.
And the notion that we have been less than thorough, that we have not met our obligations, is, frankly, insulting to the work that our team has done on this project, and by implication, on so many others as well. So, let
me lay out that process now.
We began formal consultations with the White House's project team in December. I was at one of those first meetings where we discussed project goals, project timelines, and where the core interests of this Commission were advocated for quite vigorously. Our staff engaged with the project team, as we do on so many projects, and the overall project now before us began to take shape.
In January, three months ago, the White House team, represented by Office of Administration Director Josh Fisher and lead architect Shalom Baranes, gave an extensive public presentation on the project and what they were looking to build and achieve.
We gave substantial feedback. Members of this Commission had the opportunity to express the concerns and qualms that some of them had, and I would note that many members of this Commission were also fulsome with their praise for the project's goals and ultimate
objective.
I thought Shalom Baranes was quite compelling in addressing the concerns that were raised and addressing questions about the design choices made and the nature of the project at issue.
After the January meeting, we set out to devise a schedule that would allow for a full and fair review of the ballroom project. I was guided in setting out that schedule by the professional staff of the NCPC, who obviously have a lot of experience in these matters, as well as by my fellow members of the Executive Committee of this Commission, Vice Chairman Stuart Levenbach and Commissioner Arrington Dixon.
As our longest-serving member, I leaned on Commissioner Dixon, in particular, for his views on what was appropriate, and we, as a team, ended up deferring to our staff's recommended review timeline -- balancing the need and our desire for comprehensive public
comment period with our reciprocal desire to not unnecessarily hold up a priority project for our partners at the White House.
Last month at our March meeting, the White House team presented again. We saw in many respects that our feedback had been heard and had an impact.
The removal of the south pediment of the proposed ballroom was, for example, in my view, a great improvement on the original design that we had seen, reducing the massing of the proposed ballroom significantly and improving the coherence of the architecture of the new project with the Executive Mansion itself.
The White House team was also very responsive to our stated concerns by showing, for example, the taking into account of plantings and the treeline from the south; that the core public view of the iconic south facade of the Executive Mansion, Portico, the Truman Balcony, et cetera, would remain largely unchanged and undiminished from crucial vantage
points, and that the prominence of the North Portico of the Executive Mansion was being preserved as well to the extent possible.
And prior to this meeting, amended plans shown to us by the White House, and which we have now incorporated with the motion before us, further reflect the public comments and our feedback.
The staff's ceremonial and largely nonfunctional staircase has been removed, reducing the footprint of the ballroom significantly and markedly improving side lines.
I would also note that, since December, our Commission staff has consistently emphasized to the White House team the need for an improved public pedestrian experience, when visiting the area in and around the White House. It appears that those concerns have also been heard, as we now have plans submitted to us, which we will hear more about later today, for a new visitors' entrance to the White House.
Since 1994 and the aftermath of the
Oklahoma City bombing, the White House has steadily become -- because of very real security concerns -- more and more walled-off from the general public by an expanded complex of unsightly security barriers and fencing. With the White House's visitor center submission, we are seeing the most significant concerted real efforts to restore public viewsheds and improve the pedestrian experience around the White House in three decades.
And I would like to think that the NCPC has been part of the impetus for action on that front. After the formal presentations in March, Commissioners had the opportunity to ask questions and comment, and we then heard public testimony for many hours. I want to emphasize that everyone who wanted to be heard on this project was heard. We did not require in-person testimony, as we could have.
We heard from folks all over the country, and even a presentation from a couple well-meaning and rather misguided engineers from
Venezuela, who proposed a massive geodesic freedom dome on the South Lawn, which, for the record, I do not support.
I commend so many members of this Commission for sitting through the many hours of testimony and thoughtfully considering the testimony that we heard. I want to note that we would have been within our rights as a Commission to immediately vote on the ballroom at that point. Indeed, we had a seconded motion on the floor at that time. Instead, we held that motion over to give us more time to properly consider the matter before us, in light of the testimony and the materials that we had before us.
I have now personally read every single comment submitted to this Commission. That has not been a simple or a quick task, but, as Chairman, I thought it was my duty. I heard every minute of public testimony on this project. I have reviewed our staff's recommendations, and I have reviewed the project
materials submitted to us at great length.
I should note that many of the negative comments that were submitted to us during this process were, frankly, unresponsive. They dealt with issues beyond the scope of this Commission -- the private funding of the ballroom, for instance, or interior decorations, or the demolition process, or were simply opinions on the President himself.
Considering issues of this sort is not within our mandate. We are not some sort of free-ranging ballroom justice commission.
A great many of the negative comments we received were also copies or variations on a number of what I found to be unhelpful form letters circulated by groups that oppose the ballroom. While I always commend members of the public for engaging with civic processes, I would have preferred to hear unvarnished views as opposed to picked-over, uninformed language repeated hundreds of thousands of times.
I took much more seriously the number
of serious architectural critiques that we received. Some were from noted architects; others from simply interested members of the public who took the time to send us their thoughts and comments. And to those members of the public, I thank you and I want to assure you that I considered your views before coming to my decision today.
Today, I will be voting in favor of this project and I want to explain why. In doing so, I hope my fellow Commissioners will indulge me. I think it would be instructive to discuss the actual architectural history of the White House and the White House complex, in order to properly contextualize the project that we have before us. And in doing so, I believe that I will address many of the public and architectural concerns that we have received during this process.
In 1792, President George Washington and then-Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson launched a design competition to design what was
then called "the President's House." The submission that won out was that of James Hoban. It was inspired, many say, by Leinster House in Dublin, one of the greatest examples of 18th century Georgian architecture in Ireland with Palladian elements particularly prominent.
Design and construction did not end with Hoban, though, by a very long shot. Indeed, if you look at the White House today, it bears very little resemblance to the original Hoban design.
Jefferson, who had criticized the White House previously has big enough for, quote, "two emperors, one pope, and the grand lama in the bargain," on taking office, actually quickly saw a need for expansion. He added colonnades to house various service spaces that would otherwise have been in outbuildings, significantly expanding the original footprint of the White House.
Shortly thereafter, of course, the building was substantially burned to the ground
by the British during the War of 1812, for which I have still not forgiven them, requiring total reconstruction. And the building that was rebuilt thereafter quickly departed from the relatively simple original Hoban design.
James Monroe added the South Portico. Andrew Jackson, very controversially, as I alluded to before, added the North Portico in 1830. These two imposing classical design elements were roundly criticized for their cost and extravagance in their day, but are now perhaps the defining architectural features of the White House.
Sprouting up next to the White House, of course, a short while later, was the imposing edifice of the Treasury Building -- growing from a relatively small classical structure begun in 1836 to the massive four wings that it encompasses today by 1869. The Treasury grew to dwarf in footprint and massing the White House that it sat beside.
During the same time period, the
continued viability of the White House as the presidential residence and seat of government was repeatedly called into question -- for many reasons -- but including the fact that it just simply wasn't big enough.
Both before and after the Civil War, there were numerous proposals to move or to substantially rebuild the White House, but none of these were pursued. What occurred, instead, was simply sprawl.
The complex started growing in a largely disorganized and ad hoc fashion. On the west side of the White House, for instance, connected to the West Colonnade, massive greenhouses and conservatories grew -- and grew and grew -- until, indeed, several decades later, by the turn of the 20th century, their footprint rivaled the Executive Mansion, dwarfing any comparable structures on the east side of the building short of the Treasury, and were considered a vital and historic part of the White House complex.
Indeed, as a side point, those who speak today about the historical symmetry of the White House as it relates to the ballroom proposal are, essentially, speaking about a fictional history of the building, not present since the very earliest days of our Republic. The White House complex as a whole has never been symmetric since perhaps the 1830s, if even then.
And then, whether it was the version in Treasury Department to one side or the greenhouse facilities on the other, the White House complex in its first century grew in fits and spurts, and it has continued to do so until the present day.
Beginning in 1871, rising just to the west of the conservatories and greenhouses was a new massive addition to the complex, the State, War, and Navy Building, now called the EEOB, dwarfs the White House, overtopping and literally overshadowing it.
With little in the way of architectural
coherence with the White House and Treasury, its Second Empire styling and design was roundly criticized. Mark Twain called it "the ugliest building in America." Henry Adams called it "an architectural insane asylum."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt considered a near total redesign of its facade, as it was still reviled as an architectural atrocity in his time.
Today, of course, views differ significantly and most consider it to be quite beautiful, if somewhat discordant with the White House.
By 1892, the White House complex was such a mess and so clearly underbuilt, given the demands of the presidency at that time, that Benjamin Harrison and his formidable wife Caroline proposed a total redesign of the complex, adding diagonal connectors on the east and west of the Executive Mansion connecting the two massive halls on either side, equal in size to the Executive Mansion, that could contain
office space, entertaining space, galleries for art and historical artifacts. This plan was never implemented, but it shows that, certainly, by 1892, the same arguments being made for the ballroom, the same needs being identified, were an issue for the presidency.
Proceeding into the 20th century, we get Teddy Roosevelt, who demolished the halfcentury-old greenhouses and conservatories -drawing intense public ire in doing so, and threw up office space to the west of the West Colonnade, forming what is today the West Wing, or at least the roots of the West Wing.
Roosevelt also built a small East Wing to serve as an entrance and cloakroom, which was later largely demolished in the 1940s before being rebuilt. The West Wing grew under Hoover, burned down, was rebuilt, and then, FDR, effectively, tripled its size, adding two floors and what is now the Oval and Cabinet Suite to the south of the West Wing. FDR also added a swimming pool under the West Colonnade.
Truman tore the entire White House
interior down to its studs, substantially rebuilding it, and for good measure, added the Truman Balcony to the south facade, for which he was, of course, roundly condemned.
Kennedy added the Situation Room complex, a large addition to the south of the West Wing.
Nixon put a press room in where the swimming pool was -- again, drawing public condemnation.
I could go on and on and on. My core point is that the White House is ever changing, ever evolving, to meet the programmatic needs of an ever-changing and evolving United States presidency. Any argument that relies on the idea that the White House is unchangeable, or should be unchangeable, flies in the face of the very history of the structure such critics claim they are trying to protect.
And so, we arrive at the latest project to be proposed as an addition to the White
House, the ballroom to be built on the side of the old East Wing. Since at least the Harrison Administration -- and you could make the argument since the days of Andrew Jackson -there has been a recognized need for a large entertaining and event space on the White House complex.
Modern Presidents have accommodated this programmatic need for large events by erecting unsightly tents on the oft-swampy land of the South Lawn. Nobody can argue that this is a good idea or that it befits the presidency of the greatest and most powerful country that has ever existed in history.
We have been told by the White House project team and by architect Shalom Baranes that they are looking to build a ballroom that can seat 1,000, while also accommodating the needs of the presidency -- security, ingress, egress, room for various ceremonies, et cetera.
We, typically, defer to applicants when they define their programmatic needs. That's as
true for this project as it is for a parking garage or a cellular tower, or any number of other projects that regularly come before this Commission.
But I will note that the Washington Hilton seats over twice as many in its ballroom. One thousand is not an unreasonable number programmatically and not an unreasonable amount of space, especially given that, presumably, many events to be held there might have fewer people, but require space for entertainment, a dias for speeches, room for displays, and require substantial space for visiting dignitaries.
The proposed ceiling is high, but I would think that a ballroom for the President -and indeed, for the United States -- for the most important civic events in our country, befits a high ceiling.
Some of the architectural critiques we received have focused on the kitchen, which is currently to be at ground level. Some have
suggested that, if the kitchen were moved underground, the entire height of the structure could be reduced significantly.
We have also been told, however, by the project team that subterranean construction is simply not possible -- owing to other programmatic needs below grade. And I want to speak very carefully here.
The President has spoken publicly to an extent about what is being built below the ballroom, and for obvious reasons, I will not go further than he has on the subject. But I will note that there are sealed entries on the docket of the court case brought against the ballroom project by the National Trust. And I think it is, therefore, safe for the public and for this Commission to assume that these subterranean programmatic needs are serious and unmovable, and as noted in public docket entries, related to national security.
It is, of course, also public record that FDR built an emergency bunker beneath the
old East Wing, for which he was actually criticized at the time.
Other critiques that we have received have emphasized personal animus towards President Trump, that he is simply building a ballroom for his own use. I will note, though, that even if the current construction timeline holds as I expect it will, President Trump will get very limited use of this structure before the end of his term, and that the real beneficiaries will be future Presidents of all political stripes and dispositions and their administrations, as well as, of course, the American people.
The ballroom that is proposed, while large, fits neatly into the White House complex, nestled as it is between the Executive Mansion and the much larger Treasury Building. It does not overtop and overshadow the Executive Mansion, as does the Eisenhower Building. And its neoclassical architecture matches and complements the neoclassical elements of the
Executive Mansion, in contrast, again, to the Eisenhower Building with its Second Empire features.
I've spoken at length about the history of the White House today. I've done so because perhaps the only constant in the history of the White House is that practically every change, every modification, every addition, and indeed, every feature that we now celebrate as an iconic aspect of the White House, was roundly and viciously condemned in its day.
The critiques of the ballroom today are, therefore, oddly familiar to those of us who have studied the White House and its surroundings. Just as the North and South Porticos, the West Wing, the Truman Balcony, and every other aspect of the White House are now celebrated, I believe, too, in time, the ballroom will be celebrated as a crucial and contributing aspect of the White House complex. And as I said previously, I intend to support it today.
Commissioner Blair?
COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Thank you, Chairman.
Well, how can I follow that? We now have a good history of the White House.
(Laughter.)
I would just say, obviously, I think the team has worked very hard to make this a good and beautiful structure. I agree that the President will get very limited use.
I think it's worth noting that the architect of this structure, who I think is here with us today, is a renown architect that has contributed a lot to this city and region and has won countless awards for his work.
I think his firm has received 250 or so awards over his four decades, based on my research -- and he can correct me if I'm wrong. It's probably more, including some of the most prestigious awards in architecture. He was one of the youngest fellows at the American Institute of Architects ever admitted, which is
a standout of his record. And I won't go through all of the buildings in the area that they have participated in. But all of the top-level awards you can win in architecture, pretty much he's won and his firm has won.
And I think to treat this project as different or somehow not from the same lineage of art and artistic design, simply because there are some people who, I think for clearly political reasons, don't like the project, is a shame, and I think it is an unfair besmirching of the architect.
Further, the President, who, obviously, has had a hand in this design is a builder himself, and he, too, has won numerous architecture designs and architecture awards for buildings he has built over the years, as well as hospitality awards and many others.
So, I think that's worth noting because the purpose of the ballroom really blends the two things. It blends great architecture with great hospitality, which is something the
President cares deeply about, because it represents the American people. That's what the White House does. It's not his house. He is the current occupant, but it is the American people's house, and he feels that way.
And as I've said in my comments previously, the goal of this is to be able to give the American people or our visitors -- the King of England will be here at the end of the month, and we will likely dine in tents. When the President was recently in the United Kingdom, they dined in Windsor Castle.
It's a little bit different, and, you know, we would say that it is not fitting of the presidency or the White House to have to invite the King of our oldest ally, and, you know, perhaps the most loyal ally, to come and eat in tents on the White House lawn. They deserve a better experience.
I think that the public comment was well heard, despite the obvious campaigns that were, I would say, unserious in their critiques
of the architecture of the project itself and more political in nature.
I think all of the real feedback has been well-considered. I think that perhaps we'll hear some differences today, but I think it's been well-considered.
I think it's clear that the team that has been on this project cares about what this Commission thinks and has worked hard with it, as well as any project that, you know, has happened certainly during my time here, as any other team has.
And so, with that, I think we should all support this project. I will certainly be supporting this project.
And I will yield further comment.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Blair.
Administrator Forst?
COMMISSIONER FORST: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and our fellow Commissioners.
I think this project is absolutely appropriate and logical. We're all familiar with our President's constitutional roles, but a President is also the Convener-in-Chief of the United States and most powerful in the world.
Would we have done more with appropriately sized and framed workspace over the decades and centuries? I surely believe so.
Until now, we've convened as we can -probably not convened as we should -- that's world leaders, business leaders, athletic, scientific, technical.
We've retained a notable, federally accomplished architect. We've sourced the capital 100 percent from private pay. The attention to detail I think seems exquisite.
And we talk about an accelerated process. We all know things take as long as we let them.
Ninety-seven days ago when I was sworn in as the Administrator of GSA, we launched Project 410. It's our north star. It took 410
days to build the entirety of the Empire State Building. Things do take as long as we let them.
I have every confidence this is going to be magnificent. We're going to wonder why we didn't do it earlier.
So, Mr. Chairman, I'll also be supporting this with a firm yes.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Administrator Forst.
Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I have no comments at this time. I'll pass.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Mendelson?
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: I thank you.
So, I'm going to start with a question, which I think is to Mr. Acosta. I received a note earlier today that some of the President's statements and renderings regarding the ballroom are not consistent with what we have before us today. I don't know if that's correct. Do you
know? And is what we're voting on, is that what is binding or what the President has been speaking or describing?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Sure. So, I can answer that, Chairman Mendelson.
The motion that the Chairman gave at the beginning regarding the addendum to the EDR that was circulated to Commissioners and posted on our website yesterday incorporates the updated design that had been shared, and that we received the information on that from the project architect and applicant team.
And so, what is with the amended motion, assuming the motion passes the Commission today, it would be the updated plans that have been circulated that the Commission is approving.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: Regardless of public statements that might be somewhat different? The public statements by the President?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: What is before the
Commission to be approved is the updated plans
that were shared.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: Okay.
CHAIR SCHARF: That includes the removal of the southern staircase -
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: Yeah, I understand.
CHAIR SCHARF: -- which you previously criticized, sir, and the addition of the southwest switchback there, yes.
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: No, I understand. I looked at it.
I just wanted to understand clearly what the Commission has before it.
So, I have a number of comments. I'm going to see if I can have these somewhat organized.
The issue to me is not whether there should be a ballroom, and I think a lot of the comments here have been about whether there should be a ballroom. I don't think that's it. It's the design.
And I don't think the issue is that, while other changes to the White House have been criticized; therefore, the critiques here are not justified. I'm sure there have been a lot of other proposals for the White House that were, in fact, not adopted.
What we have before us is this proposal and whether this proposal is acceptable or the best it can be.
I have previously spoken to the issue of time and consideration. I recognize that spending two years on a fence is an awful long time. And it does seem to me that it could happen more quickly. I'm looking at Administrator Forst.
On the other hand -- what? -- we've had this for maybe three months? Our first discussion I believe was at the January meeting. And I think there's a lot of value to the iterative process, and we've not had that.
I'm reminded of some testimony that was submitted. I'm going to paraphrase it. We
don't have to choose between respecting our history for the American people and accommodating modern government's needs.
In the case of the East Wing Modernization Project, we can do both. Doing both, however, requires time, and that we move deliberately; that we engage seriously with ideas offered by the tens of thousands of architects, planners, scholars, and patriot citizens who have submitted comments.
It is possible to build a 1,000-person ballroom that, unlike the plan currently under review, truly honors the iconic status, the primacy, and the historic significant of the People's House. Comments submitted show how this could be done. The resulting ballroom would be smaller and it would hold a thousand people for a seated dinner. It would be lower in height and it would still accommodate the functions proposed in the current plan.
It would respect the building's original architectural style, and by retaining
the historic access along Pennsylvania Avenue between the Capitol and the White House, it would preserve the material representation of the symbolic connection between the Legislative and the Executive Branches in a Nation committed to representative government and public accountability.
This consultative process exists for a reason. To borrow the words of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch, words that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch used to describe our legislative process, "It enables us to tap the combined wisdom of many, not just that of a rushed process."
So, I had brought up -- I think it was at the January or February meeting -- concern about the demolition. It was pointed out that NCPC's general counsel has said the NCPC does not have jurisdiction over reviewing demolition. I'm not going to argue that, but the fact that it was demolished atypically before plans were presented means that the process, the iterative
process, was more fixed.
I look at the EDR. I don't see any analysis of the square footage needs. I don't see any analysis of why the structure can't be lowered. We're told for security reasons. Perhaps that's correct, but there's just no analysis.
I think that we can have a ballroom. To me, that's not the issue. And I would also just note, parenthetically, that I think much of the criticism is because of who is the President. I don't think that's what's before - or I'll say that is not what is before us.
But I do think that the height of the ballroom, when I asked that of the architect at the last meeting, I didn't get a persuasive answer that the height needed to be 40 feet. It could be 39, 38, 37, 36 feet. I didn't see the analysis of that.
And to me, that's what is the issue here, is that this addition is, when I looked at what was circulated yesterday, the addendum, I
mean, it just -- I'm trying to be nice here -it's just too large. It's just too large.
And if we can get the same program, but not as tall, not competing in height with the main structure, and a condensed footprint, we are better for that.
I think of the visitors' center at the Capitol. That's a huge addition. And when you stand on East Capitol Street and you look west at the Capitol, it's, to me, quite remarkable, the vista, the view of the Capitol, because all that was set. That huge program -- a lot of rooms, a lot of conference rooms, a lot of committee rooms, a lot of, a lot of, a lot of stuff -- and it was done. And we've not, because this has been such a rushed process, we have not had the benefit of that iterative work.
I will note the EDR talks about how, well, some of the impact of the scale and height will be mitigated by landscaping. That may be true, but, to me, that is not -- that's not the solution; it just isn't. Landscaping is
important. Trees die, last I've checked. Trees can be or plantings can be moved around. To me, landscaping is great, but that is not a solution.
I will add as well that I am concerned that there have been comments at our proceedings and in the public about other changes. And I've said this; I think I've said this at our last meeting: I don't think we should be looking at the White House piecemeal.
Today, it's the ballroom; tomorrow, it could be the -- there's some modifications to, I guess it's the colonnade between the main building and the West Wing; the day after that, it could be some addition to the West Wing. We should be looking at all of this at one time and not piecemeal. So, that is a concern of mine as well.
I think that the fact that this addendum to the EDR exists speaks to the value of the iterative process; that there have been changes made. I don't think they're enough. I
think that, if we had more time -- and I can't help but wonder, but that the court action, the injunction, even though it's been stayed, would give us more time; that we would be able to make -- see even better improvements.
But still protect the program. That's not the issue for me. But have an addition that is more compatible.
Thank you. CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner
Mendelson. Commissioner Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: I have no
comments at this time. CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Giachetti? COMMISSIONER GIACHETTI: I have no
comments at this time, either. Thank you. CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart? (No response.) We don't have Commissioner Cozart with
us. Apologies.
Commissioner Salesse?
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With the federal work that NCPC staff has done and the improvements to the project I see today, and the important element that you've made, Mr. Chairman, that the complex has to evolve, it has to evolve to meet the functioning of the Administration and the White House, it's very important that it's able to do that and meet the mission requirements of this President and his staff. I think that's critical, the time, too, to make sure that those things happen quickly.
I think it will, as you point out also, serve the leadership today and in the future.
So, with that, I support the project moving ahead.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Stidham?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Thank you,
Chairman.
With that, I have a statement on behalf of Secretary Burgum I would like to read.
"So, good afternoon. I am providing the following statement on behalf of the Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum regarding the Commission's final vote on the East Wing Modernization Project.
"The Secretary recognizes and appreciates the substantial public testimony received on this proposal. The record reflects a wide range of perspectives, including comments emphasizing historic preservation values and the symbolic importance of the White House grounds; concerns about scale, massing, and visibility from key public viewpoints; concerns about impacts to the historic landscape, composition, and axial views; questions about process and transparency, and from some commenters, support for improvements framed as strengthening national pride and the civic character of the Capital.
"Today, the Secretary is voting in support of the project. This vote reflects the Secretary's judgment that the final design, as presented for Commission action, advances an operational need for a permanent secure venue to support official state functions and other responsibilities of the Administration, while proceeding through the Commission's established review framework that considers design, site planning, and relationship to historic setting.
"As the project moves into implementation, the Secretary emphasizes the importance of continued coordination and execution consistent with the approved final design, particularly the integrated relationship among architecture, landscape, lighting, access, and circulation, as well as site-edge conditions, so that the built-out compound is coherent, durable, and appropriate to its national significance and civic landscape."
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Argo?
COMMISSIONER ARGO: Thank you.
I think I will make this simple. I would like to align myself with Phil -(laughter) -- Commissioner Mendelson's comments, which I thought were thoughtful, on point, and raised issues we should be concerned about before what may be a rush to approve something this significant.
Thank you.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Vice Chairman Levenbach?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Well, thank you.
First, I want to commend the Chairman for the fascinating walk through history. And I think it's important because, you know, we work on public policy issues all the times, and a lot of times, you evaluate it based on the circumstances of the moment. And it's important here to evaluate this through the arc of history. And so, I thought that was a very important context for us.
So, I want to say a couple of things.
One is that I appreciate the level of
public interest in this proposal. The White House belongs to the American people and it's appropriate the changes to the grounds receive careful scrutiny, and careful scrutiny from this Commission.
But before I turn to the proposal itself, I want to briefly just note the perspective that I bring to the discussion. So, I started working the Executive Office of the President in 2007, when I joined the White House Office of Management and Budget. So, my office was in the New Executive Office Building, which is across the street from the White House. I have now served in the Executive Office of the President for three presidencies. And so, I have a lot of familiarity with that corner of town.
And during those years, I've attended many events at the White House -- holiday receptions, meetings. I've provided countless tours of the friends and family. And most
recently, I attended the Hanukkah reception. I discussed the crowding in my earlier remarks before this Commission.
And that brings me to the proposal before us. It's our responsibility to ensure that the White House campus can support the modern presidency while still respecting the history of the place.
And it's clear from all my experiences at the White House that it is not suited to accommodate the large numbers of guests that are indoors. The building is extraordinary, but its ceremonial spaces were designed for a much smaller scale of events that the presidency hosts today.
The gatherings are often held, as many people have discussed, under temporary structures on the South Lawn. And those events require generators, staging infrastructure, catering operations, portable restroom facilities for the guests. And these installations must be assembled, secured,
removed repeatedly, often with damage to the grounds.
The presidency has a ballroom. The only question is whether we continue building it temporarily each time, or do we do it once properly?
I listened carefully to the public's concerns about the size of the modernized East Wing, and I think the critics failed to account for two important aspects.
So, first, the White House complex sits atop an extensive network of underground infrastructure and secure facilities that support the operations of the presidency. And those constraints can significantly limit where new construction can realistically occur and shape both the placement and the ability to develop below grade.
So, portions of the West Wing were able to be constructed below grade. I believe it's some parts are even one story below grade.
I appreciate the comment about the
Capitol visitors' center. Much of that is below grade. That type of excavation just is not capable -- cannot be done in this particular location.
Second, although the project is commonly referred as a "ballroom," it is actually a multipurpose facility. The building will include space for the Office of the First Lady. It will include a theater; of course, the staff for food preparation and other necessary support for events. It also contains continuity of operations for the President that were recently highlighted.
And so, my reaction to the proposal is the same today as when it was originally briefed. It is that this structure will vastly improve the utility of the White House compound.
So, I'm going to talk just a moment about architecture. So, Thomas Jefferson was not only a President, he was one of the most thoughtful architectural minds of the Founding Generation. And when he served as Minister of
France, he studied classical buildings and concluded that the architecture of public institutions should reflect the dignity of the Republic.
So, when the State of Virginia built its capital in Richmond, Jefferson rejected ordinary government designs at the time. He, instead, modeled the structure after Maison Carree in Nimes, which is a Roman temple that he admired.
And his belief was simple: the institutions of a great Republic should be housed in buildings that convey permanence, beautiful, and civic confidence.
And this is not an expansion for its own sake. It is a consolidation of functions that are already occurring, but inefficiently. And if we are going to add a building to the White House grounds, it should not simply solve a logistical problem. It should also be worthy of the setting.
And this proposal does both. It
addresses a real operational need while contributing a building that is dignified, harmonious with its surroundings, and worthy of the White House campus and the American people.
And for those reasons, I support moving forward with it.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach.
Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and the second, and then, take the vote by roll call?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman?
Yes, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I'd like to ask one more -
CHAIR SCHARF: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I would like to comment.
CHAIR SCHARF: Absolutely, sir.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: First, I would want to thank all the comments that were made. Particularly, I want to focus on my Chairman
Mendelson's comments.
I also am impressed with what you presented to us, also, Mr. Chairman. You and I have had some dialog about this issue for several weeks now, but I, like you, have taken the time to look at it and try to review all the comments -- as many as I could at least of the 39,000 we received. And clearly, they have a meaning, and your evaluation was valid and I appreciate that evaluation of them.
I also want to associate myself with the comments of my other colleagues here. Obviously, they were well-prepared, and the words should go back to President Trump that they represented him well and they made very decisive presentations, as would be expected.
I've got three choices. I can vote no; I can vote yes, or I may want to take another position, which I have been encouraged to do and thought about doing. It's to, basically, pass it at this time, rather than, as you and I discussed earlier, vote to maybe say, no, I told
you a long time ago and gave you a document to support it, which I'm holding in my hand now, which I will keep for reference, for later.
But at this point, I would like to just suggest that I support a lot of the dialog here, and we need to -- we're going to move forward, I think. Whatever I do, it's going to go forward.
And hopefully, we will always tell people: to the victors go the spoils. So, if we are -- whoever is victorious in the future will be able to enjoy this building, and maybe some of us will be at the building enjoying it, looking back and saying how it got to be what it is.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Do any other Commissioners wish to be heard at this time?
(No response.)
Hearing and seeing none, at this point, Madam Secretary, could you please confirm the motion and the second, and then, take the vote
by roll call? MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The original motion was made by
Commissioner Dixon and amended by Chairman Scharf. That motion, the original motion was seconded by Commissioner Schaefer and seconded, as amended, by Vice Chairman Levenbach.
With that, Commissioner Salesse? (No response.) Commissioner Stidham? COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman
Levenbach? VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIR SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Administrator Forst? COMMISSIONER FORST: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Mendelson? COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: No. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Giachetti? COMMISSIONER GIACHETTI: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. The motion passes. CHAIR SCHARF: Thank you, Madam
Secretary. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM CHAIR SCHARF: With that, we'll move on to agenda item 8, which is the Consent Calendar. There is one item on this month's Consent Calendar.
I see that our friends from the press don't want to stick around for the Arabian Leopard Exhibit. I'm very disappointed to see
that, but understand, obviously.
(Laughter.) MP215 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 4251 SUITLAND ROAD, SUITLAND, MARYLAND – NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY SUITLAND - DRAFT AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND
TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES
CHAIR SCHARF: The only Consent Calendar item for approval is to approve comments on the Draft Area Development Plan and Transportation Management Plan Updates for the Naval Support Facility, Suitland.
Are there any questions or discussions
on the Consent Calendar item from Commissioners? (No response.) COMMISSIONER DIXON: So moved. CHAIR SCHARF: Hearing and seeing none,
we have a motion on the floor to approve the
Consent Calendar. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Second. CHAIR SCHARF: With a motion and a
second, is there any desire to discuss -- any
desire to discuss this item? (No response.) Hearing and seeing none, Madam
Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and second, and then, take the vote by roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes, the motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Blair.
Commissioner Salesse? COMMISSION SALESSE: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commission Stidham? COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman
Levenbach? CIVE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Administrator Forst?
COMMISSIONER FORST: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Mendelson?
COMMISSIONER MENDELSON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Giachetti?
COMMISSIONER GIACHETTI: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion passes. OPEN SESSION CALENDAR
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary.
We have six items on our open session calendar for today.
Agenda Item 9A is the request to approve preliminary site and building plans for the new stadium at RFK Campus.
And I believe we have Laura Shipman
who’s going to be presenting for NCPC.
8721 MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 2400
EAST CAPITOL STREET, NE, WASHINGTON, DC – NEW
STADIUM AT RFK CAMPUS MS. SHIPMAN: Good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and Commissioners.
The District of Columbia’s RFK Stadium Project Management Office, in partnership with the Washington Commanders, has submitted preliminary plans for a proposed new stadium and surrounding site improvements on the RFK Stadium Campus located in Washington, D.C.
At the preliminary review stage, the Commission is focused on whether Applicant addressed comments made during concept review, general consistency with the comprehensive plan, and a range of building and site design topics, including view sheds, massing, landscape circulation, and programming.
As a reminder, the stadium site is in a prominent location positioned on axis with the
U.S. Capitol and the East Capitol Street near
the banks of the Anacostia River.
We will begin with the stadium and site design.
At concept review in February, the Commission was generally supportive of the conceptual design approach, providing several recommendations and requests for additional information to ensure the appropriateness of the design for the site.
The Applicant has been quite responsive to those comments.
At our last review, the Commission requested an elevation and height comparison with the U.S. Capitol and Washington Monument.
On this slide, the true height comparison is diagramed on the top with the height of the Capitol at 288 feet and the stadium dome reaching 195 feet.
The elevation above sea level comparison is on the bottom showing the significant elevation change between the Capitol Building and proposed stadium.
I will also note that the District Zoning Administrator made the final determination that the project conforms with the Height of Buildings Act.
As requested by the Commission, the Applicant provided a rendering confirming the stadium roof form will maintain a view of the
U.S. Capitol Building dome and Washington Monument beyond along the East Capitol Street axis from the Anacostia Hills.
This is the previous west elevation from the February concept submission.
And here is the current proposal.
In particular, the columns and entry archway have been refined in the latest iteration.
At concept review, the Commission requested further information regarding the proposed column spacing and recommended refinements to the column design to reflect historical precedence.
In reference to classical fluted
columns, eight flutes are articulated at the base of each of the stadium’s columns, blending into a solid roof support, symbolizing the eight Wards of the District, united into one.
The proposed column spacing, every 26 feet on center, is required structurally to support the stadium roof.
The preliminary submission responds to site design recommendations by the Commission regarding formal design and landscape buffers.
The Festival Plaza, West and East Plazas have a balanced and nearly symmetrical design that integrates elements such as an allay of trees, grand stairways, and an elevated landscape podium to emphasize the axial relationships along the East Capitol Street view corridor and reference the formal landscapes of the monumental core.
This aerial view of the stadium from the west overlooking the Festival Plaza illustrates the site design emphasis on reinforcing the East/West axis.
Additionally, as recommended, the landscape design introduces wide planted areas to buffer from the adjacent high traffic roadways to enhance the experience of the vegetative plazas at the north, south, and east entries to the stadium.
This is an aerial view showing the East Plaza and landscape buffering from adjacent roadways.
The Commission also requested the Applicant provide information on related RFK Campus project components outside the site boundaries that will be implemented at the time of stadium opening so that the project could be evaluated as a whole.
The parking garages shown on this overall axon will be developed independently from the stadium and will be separate submissions in the future.
However, their general massing is shown in several of the following renderings of the stadium.
The heights will be up to 110 feet.
Also, the primary truck loading entry, a tunnel under the stadium grounds is shown to the north of the stadium.
Now, I will walk through several of the requested views of the stadium from eye level.
Here is a view of the approach from the east along with Whitney Young Memorial Bridge.
A view from the northwest from the Kingman Park neighborhood.
From the Anacostia River.
From the Hill East neighborhood with the D.C. Armory in the foreground.
And a view of the north entry to the stadium.
The monumental scale of the stadium is appropriate for its location and use.
However, on the north and south entries, the podium lowers to the ground and the full and potentially imposing height of the colonnades can be experienced at these locations.
Staff recommends the Commission
encourage the Applicant to continue to refine the north and south entries which open to the surrounding neighborhoods to ensure they are inviting and appropriately scaled within the context of the monumental design.
And now, I will walk through the requested views of the pedestrian arrival experience on game day.
This shows the route from the Metro through Festival Plaza.
Another through the north pedestrian tunnel.
And west of the stadium near the Podium Shops.
At concept review, the Commission requested additional information on the proposed building program at street level and how these spaces will be designed to help activate the public realm.
The Applicant notes the building program may include a flagship retail team
store, a museum, and food and beverage opportunities for year round use.
The open spaces around the stadium are also intended to be used outside of game days.
This is a view of the Festival Plaza on a normal nonevent day.
And the West Plaza entry on a normal day showing the shaded and vegetated ramps, seating, and stairs.
The Comprehensive Plan Visitors and Commemoration element encourages projects to ensure accessibility to visitor attractions for all users, along with well designed and coordinated signage and wayfinding tools.
Staff recommends the Commission request the Applicant provide the universally accessible circulation routes throughout the site as well as the wayfinding and signage approach with the final submission.
The Applicant notes the stadium lighting will create a softly glowing lantern-like appearance with appropriately dim lighting
to respect the hierarchy of memorials, monuments, and the Capitol Building.
To confirm alignment with Comprehensive Plan policies, staff recommends the Commission request the Applicant submit the proposed exterior lighting levels in comparison to the
U.S. Capitol Building and Washington Monument and the type, locations, size, and design of planned stadium exterior graphics, such as significant signage, display screens, and projections.
Perimeter security will include temporary crowd control elements, such as retractable bollards and fencing.
Permanent vehicle barriers and pedestrian security barriers will also be integrated into the site.
Staff recommends the Commission request additional location information and design details in the final submission for the permanent perimeter security elements such as bollards and barriers.
As the design is developed, the form and materials of the permanent perimeter security elements should complement the architectural and landscape character of the stadium grounds as guided by Urban Design Element Policy.
The preliminary submission includes additional information regarding tree preservation and replacement.
According to the Applicant, most of the existing trees on site are in poor or declining condition and these compromised trees will be removed with the exception of the allay of healthy trees west of the stadium in the Festival Plaza and north of the stadium along C Street, Northeast.
Two large elm trees, which are heritage trees, will be relocated within the Festival Plaza.
The Applicant plans to meet the District’s project requirements regarding tree preservation and replacement and to generally
conform with the intent of policies in the Comprehensive Plan federal environment element.
As recommended by the Commission, the general planting pallet includes species native to the region and select species supportive of pollinators in accordance with policies in the federal environment element.
Remaining site design information requested for final submission includes further details on plant storm water management facilities that will be visible to the public and kiosks and pavilions proposed around the stadium grounds.
And now, we will focus on the additional information provided regarding circulation and parking.
As noted in the last review, the existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure surrounding the stadium will be improved and expanded to encourage active modes.
Public transportation improvements, either planned or currently being studied,
include improved access to and capacity at the Stadium Armory Metro Rail Station and enhanced bus services or bus rapid transit.
The Applicant notes that the site plan does not preclude a second Metro Rail Station, if provided by WMATA in the future, though the plan is not dependent on this second station to manage capacity.
Transportation demand management measures are also being explored to encourage staggered arrivals and departures and the use of alternative modes of transportation.
In terms of street network at stadium opening, the existing curve or linear high speed roadway network is planned to be replaced with an urban grid of two-way streets shown in green.
The aim is for roadways to have sidewalks with buffers and planter zones to improve pedestrian connectivity where feasible.
A secondary network of streets shown in blue serves the parking garages and surface parking lots to foster efficient ingress and
egress.
On game days, there will be special traffic operations.
Closures around the Festival Plaza will allow for pedestrians to walk straight from the Metro into the stadium without crossing the roadway.
Drivers will be routed to use high capacity links to nearby highways.
And there will be barriers to cut through traffic into the neighborhoods.
This slides shows the locations of the proposed garages, mentioned earlier, and surface parking, which are outside the stadium site under current Commission review.
Overall, there will be up to 8,000 parking spaces, with 75 percent in garages and 25 percent in surface lots on opening day.
While the garages will be surrounded by development at full build out, they will be highly visible in the early phases of the campus redevelopment project.
Therefore, as part of any future
parking garage submission, the Applicant should evaluate alternative orientations for the G1 and G2 garages to reduce visual impacts of views to the stadium and from adjacent neighborhoods, lower garage heights, particularly for the G2 garage near the Kingman Park neighborhood, and/or phasing of garage upper floors as surrounding surface lots are developed.
And active uses lining the ground floors of the garages to improve the pedestrian experience and create opportunities for community serving uses.
This shows the proposed loading routes.
As noted at the Commission meeting, loading and service areas often create a utilitarian side to buildings, which would be difficult to disguise in a prominent stadium that is viewed from all angles.
The proposal aims to address this issue by locating the primary loading dock, ingress and egress, through a north tunnel under the
stadium grounds shown with the red arrow, avoiding service entry impacts to the design of the stadium building.
However, to also prevent visual impacts of the loading entry on the experience of the stadium landscape, staff recommends screening the loading tunnel entry from pedestrian pathways and seating areas with vegetation.
And finally, in terms of coordination, the Applicant conducted additional community open houses last week and is continuing ongoing coordination with the federal stakeholders, including NPS and the D.C. National Guard Armory.
As the stadium project is developed, staff supports the continuation of the District’s robust outreach efforts and recommends further analysis and mitigation of potential event noise and nuisance impacts on surrounding neighborhoods.
With that, staff recommends the Commission approve preliminary plans for
proposed new stadium and surrounding site improvements on the RFK Memorial Stadium Campus with the comments highlighted throughout my presentation and listed on the following slides.
And that concludes my presentation.
Members of the Applicant team from the District, Commanders, and design firm, HKS, are also available to respond to any questions from the Commission.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Laura.
Do members of the design team wish to be heard or are they just -
MS. SHIPMAN: They’re just available to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay.
In that case, do any Commissions have questions for Laura or for the Applicant team at this time?
Yes, ma’am?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Could you go back to, I think it’s Slide 33? And I think
this is more for the Applicant team, but you may also be able to answer this.
So, I gather from this slide, this is Day 1 operation, right? The stadium is constructed, the surface parking -- are these parking decks installed? Are they there on Day 1?
MS. SHIPMAN: Yes, that’s what is proposed here, but the Applicant has additional information.
MR. HANLON: -- executive, and I’m joined today by Mike Drye, HKS Architects, they’re the design architect. He may need to come up to answer some of these questions.
Those two garages will be there on Day 1.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: So, help me understand why we’re not seeing the development of those with the stadium package?
Because they’re -- they don’t have independent utility. They would not be there if you were not building the stadium.
And I think I had asked this before and recommended that, when you came back, that the parking garages, some development of them be shown.
MR. HANLON: Yes, Mike, are you able to respond to that in terms of timing?
Thank you.
MR. DRYE: Sure.
As you may be aware, the master plan is occurring around the District currently.
So, those parking garages, we’ve looked at them from a sizing standpoint and where they generally need to go.
We’ve studied them very closely in terms of how to get in and get out of the complex to be supportive of the overall master plan process.
You know, we have not looked at the design of those. They are preparing an RFP for those to design the actual parking garages currently.
One of the biggest things that we
looked at is where to put them to deconflict them with people, try to keep them as away from people as much as possible.
So, that’s the level that we’ve looked at it, you know, really just the fluidity of getting cars in and out, keeping them away from people, minimizing conflicts.
Worked with DDOT, you know, on that development as much as we could.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: I get the locating and I get the master plan, but this is really outside the master plan, because the master plan’s not going to be looking at the stadium. Right?
So, I am a bit concerned that you’re moving forward.
I’m not quibbling about the location, but it’s part and parcel of the stadium. So, we should be seeing it as a complex and understanding how those frame the complex, because they do frame it in their locations.
So, it would be great if, when you came
back, you gave us a bit more information on those so that we could understand how they fit into the overall design of the stadium.
Because it, you know, looking at it from that 360 view, these two are in the way and they’re part of that view and understanding how they affect that view and how their design coordinates with the stadium is really important in approval of the stadium.
MR. DRYE: Understood.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I would just echo what Commissioner Stidham said.
I think particularly the G1 parking facility affects important view sheds.
And I mean, the stadium looks beautiful right now, but as I’ve said previously at NCPC meetings, I have rarely, if ever, seen a beautiful parking facility.
So, I think understanding how that affects the overall project plan and what the stadium will actually look like to people once
it’s complete, I think it’s really important.
So, thanks for raising that, Tammy.
MR. DRYE: Understood, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Do we have any other questions either for Laura or for the project team at this time?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: I have one.
So, everyone that I have shown the renderings to loves it, even for Passover dinner last night, everybody liked it.
But there was one question that came up that I thought was interesting.
So, this -- I want to go back to the parking again.
Because so, tell - walk me through your thinking around the parking and specifically, you have two surface lots right by a plaza.
So, I’m thinking that you had an opportunity to do different things with that space.
You have this great plaza where people will be able to hang out.
Why did you decide to put surface parking to the right of that?
MR. DRYE: Surface parking to the right of -
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yes, you have two lots on the right side of that map.
Like sort of walk me through, because you have public transport here, the roads are more running by G1 and G2, tell me what you’re thinking about that?
MR. DRYE: Yes, ultimately, I believe the master plan envisions a very active pathway there.
So, that as people are coming off of the Metro, we expect somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 60 percent of patrons who visit the stadium to come from that direction.
So, the goal, I believe, of the master plan was to really enliven that direction by the Festival Plaza to have active retail, things of that nature from that direction.
When we look at the cars and how they
get into the site, really focusing on getting the cars -- getting people into the parking deck, out of their cars as fast as they can, and get them onto their feet, so we’re not deconflicting.
That was the large kind of focus on that.
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: But the two surface lots you have right there, is that supporting like retail and other things that we don’t necessarily see?
Or like what -MR. DRYE: The surface lots there are -
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: -- other ways to get to this place, you know, when you could have something else like, you know, big -- expand the plaza or do something else with the space.
Why did you put two surface lots there? That’s -
MR. DRYE: Yes, they’re -
MR. VANHORN: Is it possible for me to
speak? Sorry, sorry, Commissioner, my camera is not working.
But this is Andy VanHorn, head of real estate for the Commanders.
Those two lots exist today and they are being reused from previous RFK Stadium.
We will replace those with a mixed use development environment, including live entertainment, bars, restaurants, apartments, and hotels.
So, those are temporary and having been historically there, we were reusing them. And then, we replace them with, you know, a very active entertainment district.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: And so, after those are redeveloped, the only real tailgating spot, I’m just planning for myself in the future, would be to the southwest, is that correct?
MR. VANHORN: It is envisioned that we will also build housing and hotels there, but we have heard very much from our fans and others that we should continue to find surface parking
spaces for tailgating and other, you know, kind of traditional uses like that.
So, we are exploring that as well as the mixed use environment. That will wrap the G1 garage.
And I apologize for my camera not working.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: No, thank you, regardless of the camera issue.
Are there any other Commissioners that have questions either for Laura or for the project team at this time?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: I appreciate, as the defender of the Capitol here, the Applicants coming back with the elevation views that we asked for previously.
I think that slide was particularly helpful.
And the additional column detail, I appreciate that.
I think for future submissions, it would also be useful, at least for me, to see rendered views from probably the Lincoln Memorial and potentially, Arlington Cemetery viewpoints just to take the stadium in context.
It looks like it will probably be predominantly hidden by the Capitol Building, but I’d like to see what that looks like a little more than my back of the envelope math.
MR. DRYE: Understood. COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you,
Commissioner. Any other Commissioners at this time? (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE) CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We have two
individuals who have signed up to speak, two members of the public. The first is Frazer Walton, who’s
representing the Kingman Park Civic Association. Is Mr. Walton with us? MS. HOTTEL-COX: Mr. Chairman, we don’t
have Mr. Walton at this point, if we could start
with Mr. Flanagan?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: And we’ll see if Mr. Walton joins in time.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Neil Flanagan, who is speaking in a personal capacity.
Mr. Flanagan, you have three minutes to provide your testimony.
Please proceed when you are ready.
MR. FLANAGAN: Thank you, Commissioner.
Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes, sir.
MR. FLANAGAN: All right.
Commissioners, I encourage you to -the Commission to approve the preliminary site and buildings plans for this project because of the important precedent it will set in regard to the Height of Buildings Act of 1910.
In particular, since the law’s amendment in 2014, the Zoning Commission and the Zoning Administrator have adhered to a literal
reading of Subsection H of the law at the expense of architectural creativity.
In endorsing the colloquial definition of the word dome, proffered by the Applicant, this Commission will open the door to a new era of rooftop variety and hopefully precipitate the revision of this obsolete law.
I ask the Commissioners to refer to my written comments for a significantly more in depth and technical analysis than is possible in three minutes.
To summarize, if the Zoning Administrator’s determination were challenged in Court, I am skeptical that a Judge would find their argument persuasive.
The striking light weight roof proposed is not a dome in the structural sense, it is, instead, a hyperbolic paraboloid, or hypar.
As the Applicant admits, a hypar’s mechanism of -- is one of balancing load -balancing loads is fundamentally different from a dome.
In a nutshell, a dome’s way of spanning
space by balancing compression loads against each other and the hypar is a way of balancing tension loads against each other to cover a space.
These lead to profoundly different geometries, as you can see in the renderings, particularly in -- with the -- where the high point of the structure is located.
Historically, the Zoning Commission and Zoning Administrator have rejected colloquial interpretations of the word dome.
And I particularly point to Zoning Case 0813.
The Zoning Administrator invokes Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary to permit a loose interpretation of the word dome.
But a Court may find this argument unpersuasive.
The D.C. Zoning Regulations do refer all undefined words to Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary for the purpose -- but for the
purposes of zoning decisions.
However, the question of conformance to the Height Act of 1910 is not a zoning question and the delegation to the Mayor is not through the same law as the Zoning Regulations have promulgated.
The Commission to any Courts may be asked to review its decision making must consider whether the text of the law treats the word dome as a term of art within the architectural and engineering fields.
Approval of this project, if it is not overturned in Court, would dramatically widen the range of what is permitted to be constructed on the roofs of buildings, included structures shaped like human heads or large pyramids, both of which are definitions are provided for the word dome inspire.
I think all of D.C. should welcome this change and I believe this is a healthy endorsement of D.C.’s autonomy in the face of increasing federal intervention.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Flanagan.
Is Mr. Walton now with us?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: No.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Do any members of the Commission have any questions, I guess, then just for Mr. Flanagan?
(NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE)
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: It looks like he may have already left us.
Hearing none, that concludes public testimony for today.
Thank you for being here, sir, that was -- as a fan of the Height of Buildings Act and its storied history, that was quite fascinating.
And with that, is there a motion to approve the preliminary site and building plans for the new stadium at RFK Campus?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: So moved.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Hearing a motion, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioners.
I’ll now open it up to the Commission for discussion and I will start deliberations with Commissioner Cozart.
COMMISSIONER COZART: Good afternoon, really appreciate, as always, the work of our staff around this project.
It is continued to be a collaboration with the District and our federal partners.
I really appreciate the movement forward and all the efforts of the Parks Service as we move forward with our work.
We’ve had some really good meetings related to the master plan in the past couple of weeks, a lot of great comments about the integration of the surrounding campus with the stadium and the plans for the stadium and associated uses.
And so, a lot of good progress and momentum moving forward.
The one thing that I would say about the master plan is that the sets -- the kind of ideas behind kind of boundaries are ones for us to keep in mind, really understanding that, while parts of the campus are going to move forward more quickly than other parts, they are all related to one another.
And we’ve enjoyed a collaborative effort as Director Hanlon has shared with the team and as we think about the master plan and moving forward.
That collaborative effort certainly extends to the broader community as well and also District Agency partners.
So, just really pleased about the milestone in moving forward that we have today in front of us as a Commission and also appreciate the comments of fellow Commissioners to refine this work.
And note that we’re taking notes on any of the design ideas that come out of this that can influence the broader master plan for the
entire campus. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Excuse me. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Salesse? COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Getting ready
for the -- that was the first time I’ve seen it. The presentation was great, really impressive. I hope it brings more wins to the
Commanders. (LAUGHTER) CHAIRMAN SCHARF: A notion I’m sure
that is echoed by all the members of this
Commission. Commissioner Stidham? COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: I truly second
that. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you. COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: I kind of wished
it for the hockey team in their improvements to their structure. It’s not seen fortune yet, but maybe -
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: The Caps?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes, maybe some.
So, minus the parking structures and my comments there, I have to say, you’ve taken a very thoughtful approach to the setting of the stadium.
And you’ve thought about it more than just on game day, which I think, in the city where open space is very lacking and in great need everywhere, that you are really considered how that landscape can be used outside of a game day.
And I think that’s important to this community.
I think it’s important to the community that uses the fields that will stay and everyone on that side of the city and surrounding.
So, I commend you for thinking about it holistically in that manner.
The design is exquisite and you have taken into effect the necessary height, the necessary scale, umbrage to the previous stadium while making it larger, which has been, I think,
an idea since before the 1990s.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Quite a while.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes, quite a while.
So, I just, you know, you’ve done a great job, you know, please roll in those parking garages in a way that improves even more than you already have.
And that’s it.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Argo?
COMMISSIONER ARGO: I don’t have much to add beyond that, than being with -- you know, really impressed with where we are now.
And I’d like to align with my fellow Commissioners’ comments, forge on.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Vice Chair Levenbach?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: I’ve shown the
renderings to so many people that I’ve been talking to and every single person loves it.
So, to go from a project that did not have unanimity to one that does causes a little bit of whiplash.
But with that said, I, you know, appreciate all the thought and I know you’ve worked well with the staff and so, thank you for your efforts.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
Commissioner Blair?
COMMISSIONER BLAIR: I think I would just say that everyone’s very excited about this project and I agree, it’s very well done and looking forward to seeing proceed into the next phase.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Administrator Forst?
COMMISSIONER FORST: Yes, thank you very much.
And I’m just so excited about the evolution of the project and how people are working together.
I have to say, I’ll shout out Commissioner Stidham and others who asked about the parking and G1 and G2.
I would just say, had we not asked some of those questions, we might not have learned about some mixed use opportunities and what you’re looking to do.
And would just suggest in the fullness of transparency, as you evolve the project, that the -- that’s just volunteered and brought to our attention so we can share some of the thoughts and the excitement behind that as well.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Administrator.
Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Well, first I want to associate myself with the Planning Director’s comments.
But I would say that I’m going -- I’m excited. I’ll be more excited if I get a chance to go into the stadium.
(LAUGHTER)
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I haven’t been in one in about 30 -- 20 years in any stadium. But that’s another discussion.
And I’m glad to see it coming forward and hopefully, those who do go, will enjoy it.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Cash?
COMMISSIONER CASH: I’m just going to reiterate all the great design work on the stadium itself.
But I also really want to underscore the need to see these garages as a part of the package.
So, I mean, I see these stadium renderings and I’m loving them.
And then, all of a sudden, we see the
view from the East Capitol Bridge and Whitney Bridge and you have that -- I’m reminded of when we talked about Pennsylvania Avenue, it’s this wide vista and we don’t want anything obstructing anything, the view of the Capitol and you have like this gray box on the side that you just see there. And in the winter, it’s going to be more visible.
So, I really think that we need to see what the box is going to look like, remember that the Height of Buildings Act is a limit, not a ceiling and see what we can do to make those parking garages better.
So, I’ll disagree, I think there are some garages, if you look, you can be creative enough, anyone that’s been to National Airport, if you have to have a garage that looks okay, let’s hang a bunch of plants on the side of it and make it look like it’s not just a big utilitarian mess.
So, I think that we have an opportunity here where we have a stadium that’s really
panning out to be beautiful when a lot of people didn’t think we could do what we’re doing there on the site.
And let’s see if we can make the garages maybe do the same because there is going to be a need for that. There’s going to be a lot of people, we don’t have a new Metro Station there, let’s do what we can with the garages and make it kind of a forethought instead of an afterthought.
Because they’re going to stay there and let’s make them look good if we can, since they’re going to be there for the life of the project.
So, but again, thanks to the design team on the stadium itself. I think that the things are moving along great, so thanks.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Just echo the same comments about the garages, particularly G1
and I have nothing else.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Giachetti?
COMMISSIONER GIACHETTI: No comments other than to say I am supportive of the plans and I’m looking forward to this project moving forward.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
I prepared a 40-minute speech on the history of RFK Stadium Campus, but fearing for my chairmanship, I’ll withhold that for now, although I’m happy to provide it offline.
I think the thoughtfulness of this project is apparent to all of us.
I share Commissioner Stidham’s concerns with what parking facilities are going to look on Day 1.
At our last meeting, Commissioner Cash
also made some insightful comments about particularly truck egress, what the service entrance is going to look like.
We have what appears to be a pretty good solution to that problem based on the card renderings and design.
And I look forward to seeing how that aspect of this develops as we move towards final approval.
Overall, as I’ve said previously, I think stadiums and arenas hold a very important place in the urban landscape. I think that’s been true historically.
I think it’s certainly true today.
And I’m looking forward to seeing this stadium continue to come through to fruition.
I like the colonnade a lot. I’d like to see more on the lighting plan, particularly on when the stadium both is in use and not in use.
But other than that, I enthusiastically support bringing this through for preliminary
approval today.
And as always, I’d like to thank Laura, our team here at NCPC, and also the project team and HKS for their attention to this project and that’s really all I have to say.
Are there any further comments or questions on this project?
MR. HOTTEL-COX: Mr. Chairman, the witness who was not able to make it has joined, if you are open to hearing from him.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I think we should do that.
Mr. Walton, can you hear me?
(NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE)
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: And to remind those watching, Frazer Walton -
MR. WALTON: Yes, sir, can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We can hear you, sir.
And my understanding is that you’re representing the Kingman Park Civic Association.
And we will give you five minutes to present your testimony.
Please proceed -
MR. WALTON: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: -- whenever you’re ready.
Mr. Walton?
MR. WALTON: Thank you very much, yes, sir.
My name is Frazer Walton and I’m with the Kingman Park Civic Association which is directly -- yes, can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We can hear you, sir.
MR. WALTON: Okay.
And can you still hear me?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes, yes.
MR. WALTON: Okay.
And I’m sorry, I’ve had a problem, I’ve been here since the beginning, but I’m sorry about that.
But just to briefly, yes, sir, just to briefly -
But I just wanted to say that, as a historic district, the neighborhood sits
adjacent to the stadium. We’ve been here for
the last 98 years.
And we are -
(OFF MICROPHONE COMMENTS)
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: So, we can hear you loud and clear. I think you may have a YouTube video playing or you may be watching the Commission and there may be a few seconds delay.
If you could just mute that -
MR. WALTON: Oh, I see.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: -- and talk, I promise you, we can hear exactly what you’re saying.
I hope that was the right advice.
MR. WALTON: Okay, I’m trying to find out what the problem is here.
But at any rate, just to quickly, I don’t want to hold you up, we clearly oppose -we supported -- we strongly supported the construction of the stadium.
However, we oppose the construction of a parking garage.
And we oppose them because of the proximity to the neighborhood.
Years ago, we had the highest rate of cancer in the city and that was due to the fact that -- of the parking at RFK Stadium.
And as -- and what we’re suggesting is that we have an alternative. And the alternative would be that you not build these massive parking garages, multilevel garages and that we focus on increasing the size of the Stadium Armory Metro site.
And we also suggest that we build a new stop, a new subway stop at Oklahoma and Bennings Road within the next five to seven years.
We are very concerned, and I’ve submitted our statement and we have thousands of children, schools nearby, the playground, the golf course, you would -- the traffic would be terrific along there with these games as they were for the last 60 years.
So, 295 and 395 and the Wilson Bridge would be overwhelmed with traffic.
So, for that reason -- I’m sorry about the echo -- but so, but we will -
I thank you for allowing us to speak. We will continue to participate in trying to fight the construction.
We worked with the Navy for many years, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. government, the District government, and environmentalists like Earth Justice, many of the organizations, the Anacostia Watershed Society, to clean the Anacostia River.
We just had a terrible problem with water.
And so, for that reason, I would ask you to think about it and I appreciate the sincere interest each one of you all have shown in this garage problem, because it is truly a problem and it throws off the scale.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay, thank you, Mr. Walton.
Do any Commissioner present have any questions for Mr. Walton or further comments on
this project? (NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE) CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Hearing none, can the
Secretary please confirm the motion and the second?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes, the motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Blair.
Commissioner Cozart? COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Salesse? COMMISSION SALESSE: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commission Stidham? COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman
Levenbach? CIVE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair?
COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Administrator Forst? COMMISSIONER FORST: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Giachetti? COMMISSIONER GIACHETTI: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion carries
unanimously. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary.
We’ll now move on to Agenda Item 9B which is a request to approve comments on design concept for the new plan for Pennsylvania Avenue.
Pennsylvania Avenue’s obviously one of the most important connectors within this city.
It’s bordered essentially on all sides by highly relevant and historical structures.
Obviously, core elements of our Capitol.
I think it’s very important, particularly as we move further into America 250 with all the events coming in the months and years ahead, that we have a plan in place to make Pennsylvania Avenue what it could be, which is truly one of the iconic roads, iconic streets in the entire United States.
At the February meeting, we looked at this project, or I guess, the previous iteration of this project.
The project partners leadership were actively discussing a more efficient management structure that will oversee construction, longterm maintenance operation, and as -- and funding as well to address the needs of the avenue so that it will serve the American people, hopefully, well into the future.
And with that, we have Karin Schierhold
from our team to present with us today. Karin, would you like to proceed? 7509 NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION, PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE BETWEEN 3RD AND 15TH STREETS, NW, WASHINGTON, DC – A NEW PLAN FOR
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE MS. SCHIERHOLD: Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and
Commissioners.
The National Capital Planning Commission, on behalf of the Pennsylvania Avenue Project Partners request the Commission’s comments on design concepts for a new plan for Pennsylvania Avenue.
Commission and public feedback this month will help refine the designs considered for future analysis.
In February, as you mentioned, the Commission heard an information presentation on the project background.
I’ll start by recapping some of the key points.
NCPC is leading the Pennsylvania Avenue Project Partnership, which I’ll refer to as the Partners or Partnership, that includes the six federal and local agencies shown here, with U.S. Commission of Fine Arts as an advisor.
The Partners are working together to prepare a new plan for Pennsylvania Avenue.
The project area is shown in the solid red outline. It focuses on the corridor, the
1.2 mile segment of Pennsylvania Avenue between the White House and the U.S. Capitol, and the 40 acres of adjacent public space, and major north/south connections between the National Mall and downtown.
The Avenue and its immediate area are a national historic site, home to many historically significant buildings, statues, memorials, parks, and landscape features.
The new plan will have two components, each led by a consultant team. The focus of today’s meeting is on the public space plan which will provide a design
frame working guidance for the corridor and three main public space areas, and address infrastructure modernization.
Today, we’ll share design concepts that will be further developed and included in the public space plan.
Concurrent with the design work, the project team is working with partner agency leadership on implementation to identify an efficient management structure, to address the immediate and long-term needs of the Avenue.
The new plan will also advance making the District of Columbia safe and beautiful by improving public space, security, and modernizing infrastructure.
When complete, the new plan will replace and existing 1974 plan.
It will include an Executive Summary and the four parts listed here.
The project team plans to submit the detailed draft at preliminary review.
First, I’ll walk through the vision
aspirations and the design approach.
Pennsylvania Avenue was designed to be the physical and symbolic spine of the New Republic, the people’s promenade connecting two branches of government as a primary thoroughfare in the New Capitol City, a directivity to the city center, and connected the two rivers at the eastern and western borders.
Over time, it became a ceremonial stage and iconic setting for presidential inaugurations, national celebrations, First Amendment activities, and local events.
While Pennsylvania Avenue extends west to Rock Creek and east across the Anacostia River, our work in this presentation focused on the segment between the White House and the Capitol.
Building off of its unique role in history, a new vision will revitalize the Avenue as the nation’s most prominent civic boulevard, with its framed view of the Capitol, classical architecture, at federal triangle, and location
in the monumental core, the Avenue is a historic outdoor venue for spectacular events like the upcoming Indy Car 250 and the NFL draft.
This vision will also deliver a safe, beautiful, and revitalized street in the city, that the city and the nation can be proud of.
In so many ways, capital cities are recognized by the grand ceremonial spaces that are represented in our nation.
The new Pennsylvania Avenue will stand among the great, on the same global stage of the great capitol city boulevards in London and Paris and Berlin.
At the same time, the Avenue will be a joyful and engaging space for downtown Washington with amenities and activities that serve visitors, residence, and workers.
The new plan lays the foundation to design and implement these aspirations addressing the corridor and three main public space areas shown here.
Pennsylvania Avenue is where Americans
unite and where we convene to act, live, and gather.
The design concepts reflect key goals, objectives, and themes built upon technical analysis by subject matter experts, previous Commissions, and public feedback, and ongoing conversations with the Partner Agencies.
To set the stage for the design discussion, I’ll quickly address the Commission’s comments from the previous meeting about some of the Avenue’s issues and opportunities.
This slide shows numerous physical issues that the Avenue is facing today, including flooding, broker pavers, dying trees within an aging modernist design.
And underground is a complex mess of below grade utilities and aging infrastructure, some dating back to the 1870s that will need a comprehensive modernization.
From the 1970s through the ‘90s, the Avenue had a single steward, the Pennsylvania
Avenue Development Corporation, or PADC.
Its dissolution in 1996 caused management and funding issues that the new plan needs to address.
While not the focus of this meeting, the project team is working with Partner Agency leadership to identify a management structure as the design concept is developed.
The federal triangle, just south of the Avenue, will remain the symbolic core of the nation’s Capitol, defined by a strong federal precedence and neoclassical headquarters.
Redevelopment potential and value at nearby federal sites including the J. Edgar Hoover Building and the Francis Perkins Building will help drive economic growth and bring vibrancy back downtown.
I’ll note that this work is progressing in coordination with local Partner Agencies, aligning with and finding synergies among complementary planning efforts.
Because events are a critical part of
the Avenue’s current function and a new vision, the project team is addressing ways the design can improve efficiency and the cost effectiveness for events of all types and sizes.
The team has been working with the Military District of Washington and the Mayor’s Special Events Task Group to understand critical dimensions, for example, the inaugural parade that requires a set amount of clear path for the parade, spectators, and multiple levels of security.
There is consistently overwhelming demand to host events on the National Mall, which is often over programmed.
The team is working with the National Park Service and event producers to ensure the design accommodates the needs for First Amendment activities, festivals, and other special events to reduce that pressure.
The Avenue, as a venue, envisions a plug-and-play experience for events, reducing time for set up, tear down, and minimizing
disruption to the surrounding area.
The design will address multiple operational and safety considerations, including water and utility access, permanent and temporary security, emergency and first aid stations, telecommunications infrastructure, stages, tents, trash removal, and more.
The design concepts are tested as they evolve to ensure they can support and, ideally, improve critical event needs.
So, now, we’ll look at design.
For this concept to review, the design team prepared design concept alternatives and options.
We’ll think of an alternative as a big design move and an option as a detailed way to achieve that alternative.
There is a lot more detail in the project materials on our website and in the Commission’s packets, but for efficiency, this presentation will summarize and focus on the big design moves, which you can see on these sub
bullets, where input is most critical at this stage.
The Commission input and public comments will inform design development in the coming months.
So, I’ll start with the corridor between 3rd and 13th Streets, Northwest.
For the corridor, we are seeking input on three major design moves, reallocation of the roadway space, tree types, and flagpoles.
Aspirations for the corridor including celebrating the view shed and architectural character, beautifying the streetscape, providing pedestrian amenities, and upgrading security infrastructure.
Today, the Avenue has eight travel lanes and a center running bike lane.
This slide shows the existing cross section that hasn’t changed since the 1970s when it was designed as a primary cross town thoroughfare.
For context, this is equivalent to the
width of some interstate highways.
The transportation study found that the traffic volume has reduced since the ‘70s, and it’s now oversized for current demand.
The corridor based alternative reallocates the space to four travel lanes, one turn lane, and two curbside zones, while shifting the center bike lane to the southside.
Today’s transportation needs are different than 50 years ago and need to account for rideshare pick up and drop off, loading and deliveries, while safely accommodating multiple modes of transportation.
Moving the bike lane to the south provides the additional advantage of increased security standoff for the federal triangle.
Overall, this new configuration amounts to just one travel lane reduction.
The second major design consideration for the corridor is street trees.
Trees are an important and historic framing device that accentuates the view of the
Capitol.
There are two options, canopy trees shown on the left and then, an allay of columnar trees, which we sometimes call fastigiate trees, to the right.
Both options are laid out in a formal pattern next to the curb with additional canopy and under story trees near the building line.
The main difference here is in the shape and the character of the trees closest to the curb.
And then, the third consideration for the corridor is flagpoles that enhance the ceremonial role of the street.
Functionally, other vertical infrastructure may be integrated to these poles for every day and event use, such as permanent lading or temporary speakers and video screens.
And I’ll make two quick notes that we are showing the poles at 60-feet tall, and for comparison, other flagpoles along and adjacent to the Avenue range from 40-feet to 100-feet.
And I also want to note that they are not designed to accommodate telecommunications infrastructure.
We understand that telecom is a critical utility, but adding it to these poles would compromise their function as a consistent design feature and could become quickly outdated.
So, the next few slides show the base corridor configuration with tree -- with the different tree and pole options.
This is showing the canopy trees without poles.
The canopy trees are on one side of the pedestrian promenade. They provide shade and can accommodate a large event zone in the street.
But the mainframe view is best experienced from the street, as the trees may limit visibility of the Capitol from the sidewalk.
This shows the canopy trees with poles.
The flagpoles at a formal ceremonial element that helps define canopy tree line and frame the Capitol vista.
This shows the columnar trees without poles.
The allay or columnar trees, one tree on each side of the pedestrian promenade provides a unique formal character and direct train view of the Capitol.
It offers less shade along the sidewalk, however, it may reduce the size of event zones.
And this shows the columnar trees with the poles.
The flagpoles compliment the upright character of the columnar trees and enhance the framed view from both the street and the sidewalk.
So, here the things we had hoped to get feedback on all on one slide.
The canopies with or without poles on the left and the columnar trees with or without
poles on the right.
The design concepts will be -- continue to be developed in further detail with the recommendation for further study on if and how functions can be integrated into the poles, including understanding their structural needs and considering ways to avoid impacting the historic character views and overall visual quality of the street.
Next, we will look at the western end, which is near the existing Freedom Plaza.
With proximity to the White House and the Wilson Building, this location is often used for First Amendment activities and local events.
There are two main moves -- main design moves of the western end.
The historic alignment alternative restores the historic diagonal roadway alignment, creating two smaller plazas on both sides.
And the central plaza alternative keeps the shape of the plaza and roadway circulation
as it is today, but brings it down to the street level.
Issues at the western end include the plaza’s elevation, lack of shade and amenities, and a poor relationship to the surrounding buildings.
Aspirations for the western end include enhancing comfort while maximizing flexibility as an event space and improving traffic circulation and access.
So, we’ll start with the historic alignment alternative which proposes a new design for two street level plazas.
The big move here restores the Avenue’s historic diagonal alignment as the primary vehicular route, shown in blue.
Secondary circulation, shown with the blue hatch, provides access to adjacent buildings.
And this option shows the shared street connection between the World War I Memorial and the White House Visitor’s Center with driveway
access to the Wilson Building.
The diagonal roadway alignment creates two triangular public spaces shown in pink.
Together, these two plazas add shade and amenities, enhance the symbolic view, and create a large, flexible event space.
There are different ways to connect the public spaces to the adjacent buildings.
And this option shows a large plaza in front of the Wilson Building.
The inaugural parade route, shown in red, will follow the diagonal roadway which helps to reduce the number of 90-degree turns the parade must make.
The other alternative proposed is a central street level plaza.
The big move here generally maintains the current vehicular circulation as it is today, but around a new street level plaza.
Secondary circulation, shown in the blue hatch, provides access to adjacent buildings.
And this option shows the shared street
connection -- condition between the National Theater and the new plaza.
The central plaza and connected public spaces shown in pink, shade and amenities, strategic tree placement, and landscape frame the symbolic view, and accommodate a range of events.
There are different ways to connect the public spaces with the adjacent buildings.
This option shows how temporary closures could extend the plaza to the National Theater.
And here, since the plaza is street level, the inaugural parade, shown in red, can still go diagonally through, again, helping to reduce the number of 90-degree turns the parade must make, just something we heard was beneficial from the Military District of Washington.
Again, to summarize, these are the big moves for the western end that we hope to get
feedback on, aligning the main roadway diagonally through on the left, or retaining a central plaza configuration on the right.
Design options will continue to evolve and be presented in greater detail at preliminary review with a recommendation for further study to refine the functional and operational requirements for circulation, public spaces, and access to adjacent buildings.
The next location we’ll look at is Market Square.
Market Square is one of the lively areas along the Avenue due to its access to transit, proximity to downtown and the National Mall, and the mix of commercial and residential uses.
There’s only one design alternative for this location.
Despite being well used, it suffers from disconnected public spaces on the other side of the street, gaps in retail, and empty ground floors, and it can be confusing to find
ways to downtown, the National Mall, and other area attractions.
The existing roadway alignment does not change.
The options here address improvements to the public spaces and pedestrian areas shown in pink.
The aspiration is to strengthen the Avenue’s core identity by celebrating key axes, enhancing connections to the National Mall and downtown, embracing its historical commercial character, and adding comfort amenities like trees and seating.
Two options offer different ways to meet the aspirations.
They both include a downtown gateway, formal and intimate garden spaces to improve Indiana Avenue, and enhanced pedestrian experience on 8th Street and a covered marketplace and galleria off of Indiana Plaza.
Design options will continue to evolve and be presented in greater detail at
preliminary review with a recommendation for further study to define and refine the functional and operational requirements of the public spaces, including their relationships to adjacent buildings, broader public space network, and the transition between downtown and the National Mall.
And finally, the last location is the eastern end, the John Marshall Park.
The eastern end is where most of the larger events on the Avenue are staged, including an area that supports all of the back of house events, steps from the Capitol ground, the National Mall, and the National Gallery of Art.
There is only one design alternative for this location.
Despite its size, John Marshall Park is highly underutilized and has minimal visibility with elevation changes that impact access.
The park is surrounded by a high concentration of daytime uses such as
courthouses, law enforcement and embassy buildings that don’t generally enliven the space and have robust layers of security requirements.
The existing roadway alignment does not change.
The options here address improvements to the public spaces and pedestrian areas shown in pink.
Aspirations are to create a flexible event space that supports daily use, enhances comfort, preserves the 4th Street view shed, and improves access and security.
Three design options offer different ways to meet the aspirations.
They all include designs that address the grade change, integrate amenities, and event support infrastructure, use landscape to create shade, and accommodate a range of event sizes, and enhance views along the 4th Street axes.
Again, design options will continue to evolve and be presented in greater detail at preliminary review with the recommendation to
further study and define the functional operational requirements of the public space, relationship to adjacent buildings, broader public space network and transition between downtown and the National Mall.
As I mentioned, concurrent with concept development, the project team is working with Partner Agency leadership on implementation.
The goal is to identify an efficient management structure that can address the immediate and long-term needs of the Avenue.
Recognizing that a project of this size, complexity, and ambition doesn’t happen overnight.
The design team is also thinking ahead to factor how construction can be phased over time so that the corridor, public spaces, and/or a smaller focused interventions could be implemented in phases in any combination or order as funding is available.
Looking forward, we are looking forward to coming back to the Commission this fall for
preliminary review and early next year for final review.
As a reminder, our project deliverable is a new plan which will include a schematic design that addresses both physical design and infrastructure modernization, and provides guidance for detailed final design and construction documents in the next phase of work.
I’ve highlighted the key comments and recommendations in the presentation.
As a reminder, today’s presentation focused on the big moves we hope to get feedback on and design concepts will be further refined and developed for preliminary review.
And before I wrap up, I’d like to give an overview of our upcoming public engagement opportunities.
We’ll have many opportunities for the public to take a closer look at the design concepts this month and provide input.
We’re hosting two online public
meetings on the 8th and the 22nd. This is also an opportunity for the public to engage with the design team and we’ll have questions and answers.
And we’re also accepting comments submitted to our website through April 30th.
And starting next week, there will be a Pennsylvania Avenue display at the National Building Museum showcasing a lot of the content that we walked through today. That will also be up until April 30th.
So, with that, thank you, Chairman Scharf and Commissioners.
That concludes my presentation. I will note that the NCPC team, David Rubin from David Rubin Land Collective and Doug Davies and Lee Farmer from VHB from the design team are here to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Karin.
Do any Commissioners have any questions at this time?
(NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE)
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Hearing none, is there a motion to approve comments on design concepts for the new plan for Pennsylvania Avenue?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: So moved.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: With that, I will now open it up to the Commission for discussion.
And I’ll start deliberations with Commissioner Stidham.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: So, it’s hard to speak about this project because I’ve been working on for so long and it’s just everyone.
And to be, I have to say, to be at this point, is fabulous.
I think I’ve said for many years, we’ll never get to this point and here we are.
So, it’s great to have some ideas, some big ideas, some big moves before us for
consideration.
So, I don’t think much of what I’m going to say is going to be a surprise to those who have been working on the project.
You know, feedback on the big moves, I think, are the corridor configuration.
I think the canopy trees do the best job at framing the Avenue and giving that sense of space while providing pedestrian shade that everyone needs so badly.
I’m not a fan of the poles. I get the move that that makes and the symbology that brings, but I also -- I’m concerned with its introduction as an element on this very important Avenue and what they may be used for in the future.
Everyone sees a pole differently, so from the Park Service’s perspective, that pole also can be lights, it can be a telecom feature, it can be something no one has even dreamed of yet.
And I think it provides management and
operational challenges that we can’t even think of today.
And I think there may be other temporary ways to provide that same symbolic feature as a permanent pole was in a way that is more synthetic of this as a national historic site.
So, keeping that in mind.
For the western end at Freedom Plaza, I love the historic alignment. I think it puts the White House Visitor’s Center and I think it puts the Wilson Building in a much better setting that was more suitable for those two structures.
It’s more pedestrian friendly. I think it’s more welcoming. I think it does a better job of dealing with the traffic and events.
So, I think it provides a lot of opportunities that maybe the other option doesn’t.
Market Square, I don’t think you can go wrong with either of those moves.
John Marshall has to be one of my favorite spots. I call it like the Secret Garden. No one really knows it’s there and when you come upon it, you’re like, wow, nobody uses this space. This is a great space.
And we’re doing great improvements to it now, so go there after May 1st and you will be just amazed at how beautiful it is with the new paving and the fountains.
But beyond that, I don’t think you can go wrong with any of the options.
I think it tries to be an event space. I think it’s deserving of that.
I would look for ways to make it more adaptable, so no stairs, no walls, or minimum amounts to allow for that to be a very accessible space and usable for a variety of events.
And flexible, right, so they can handle whatever, be it an upcoming memorial, a great concert, barbeque, whatever.
I think that it has great
opportunities.
So, I think the -- thank you, again, for the presentation. I think the staff and the consultant team has done a great job of bringing this all together and thinking about not just the big events, but also the day-to-day activities and how this all blends into the city and used daily and those big events.
So, thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Argo?
COMMISSIONER ARGO: No additional comments.
I’m -- it’s exciting. It’s wonderful to see this development, appreciate the work that’s been done here.
It’s -- it’ll be great to have also see the -- some more opportunities for flexible event spaces which I think we need.
And that’s it, thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you,
Commissioner.
Vice Chairman Levenbach?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: So, I appreciate all the thought that went into it with all the
-with the multiple options.
Just to give you my -- some of my thoughts initially, I like the canopy trees a little more. I wasn’t sure about the poles.
I hate those big planters which you always have to walk around.
And I just thought the poles are another thing that carves up some of the walkways and it’s something else to walk into for clumsy people like me.
I like the central plaza quite a bit. I thought that was a nice option.
I like the neighborhood garden with the kind of sort of a soft lean.
I thought the pavilion was interesting, I think like how it -- putting it in the context of what other types of space there are in that area and this one looks like it provides a
little bit of structure for an event. I thought the pavilion was interesting.
So, I know I look forward to seeing how it develops.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
Commissioner Blair?
COMMISSIONER BLAIR: No comments to offer, thanks.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Administrator Forst?
COMMISSIONER FORST: Thank you very much.
So, 30 years since PADC was sunsetted. And I am just so energized by this presentation and the hard work that you guys put into it. I think it’s awesome.
I am trees over poles every day, so I’m with you on that.
And I would just say, Commissioner Stidham’s comments are a mic drop for me, so
thank you very much. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner or Administrator, excuse me. Commissioner Dixon?
| COMMISSIONER DIXON: | I like this mic |
| drop thing, I liked it. | |
| (LAUGHTER) | |
| COMMISSIONER DIXON: | I think that |
Commissioner Stidham’s always a mic drop for me, I think.
I would associate myself with the comments.
I want to also make it clear that I was enjoying the presentation from the room next door where I could relax a little better.
I do that sometimes, move around.
I also wanted to say that I had a long, great conversation with the consultants, the folks that are doing this and am very moved by their capacity and sensitivity.
I think the work they’re doing is exceptional and I hope they can move forward
with help.
I do agree about the poles. I mean, it’s something about them, if we have a constraint on them, it could misused maybe in some ways and I think that may be something you can look at. I don’t know how you could replace that or whatever.
I also think that the Freedom Plaza concept of dividing that helps make that turn a less sharp turn for those marching forces.
I marched in a lot of parades in many different ways and I think that it makes it easier when you have a unit moving. So, that’s great.
And the other places, the other suggestions are great -- good ones as well.
I can only remember sometime when I was a younger person, here we go, Mr. Chairman, and I would go to parades, I had to stand -- I used to climb up in the bushes at 7th and Pennsylvania Avenue. You could perch yourself on a bush and get perspective to see the
parades.
So, I still don’t have a place to go these days, but now, we’ll at least have some options that maybe I won’t have to worry about bushes and will be able to get up on it as a kid.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Now a days, if you tried to perch yourself on a bush, the National Park Service would be on you in a second, sir.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Absolutely.
So, I like what’s going on and I appreciate the support, particularly impressed with the crew that is working on it and the staff’s efforts.
So, thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Cash?
COMMISSIONER CASH: Nothing else to add. I associate myself with everyone else’s comments.
Thanks for the work -- ongoing work on
this project. It’s been a long time coming.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Oh, sure.
COMMISSIONER FORST: I’m sorry, just to jump back in, I know there’s a request for I think $3.9 million to go and take the next step.
I just want to let you know, we’ve approved that.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Administrator Forst.
Talk about mic drop.
I wish I had millions of dollars to throw around on projects.
Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: If the -- if there’s a move to get away from the poles, I think losing the ability to display flags along the Avenue would be a loss.
So, I don’t know how that would get replaced if it weren’t for poles. I’m sure there’s other good ideas, I would just still
argue for the flag here.
And that’s it.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Giachetti?
(NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE)
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Did we lose Commissioner Giachetti?
(NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE)
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We can come back to him.
Commissioner Cozart?
COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes, I just want to say, appreciation to the staff for this.
Not only do they report on this, but it’s also they put in a lot -- and a lot of work and a lot of leadership around this effort and that’s greatly appreciated.
And we’re happy to be in partnership with them to really think about operationalizing this.
The -- I associate myself with the
comments of other Commissioners.
And I just want to lift up the importance of Market Square as a way to really make the connection between the waterfront, which has had a lot of both federal and local investment to revitalize and making a way all the way up 7th Street.
Market Square is an important kind of gateway into the downtown of the District which we’re working really hard to revitalize with sports and entertainment and other really important things.
So, that’s a great stopover and really impressed with the evolution of the designs for there.
Interested in seeing the continued evolution for the other parts of the Avenue as well because it’s -- there’s some -- definitely some visual analysis and design challenges.
I look forward to seeing how we square those up as the submission goes forward in the fall.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
Commissioner Salesse?
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: So, as a new participant, I’m just really impressed with the presentation and the work that is done here. It’s really impressive.
As we get to the Avenue, the National Avenue, I do think the canopy trees, having walked that many times, especially in the summer, it’s nice to have that shade, so I think that’s important.
And I do think, at some point, how we can display flags is also a very important aspect of this.
I’m a little surprised in the 90-degree turn thing from the Military.
Maybe we should just have Marines lead all the parades. They have no problem with 90degree turns. I think they know how to march.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you,
Commissioner.
Is Commissioner Giachetti back with us now?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: No, I believe he stepped away.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: He’s stepped away?
I’ll just say, for myself, this is a really exciting project.
Thank you for that in depth presentation today.
I’m agnostic on the trees and the poles, but I’m sure that whatever design we end up settling on, will be beautiful.
I think the bigger picture item, though, really reclaiming this space to allow it to serve as the civic center, as a public gathering place, in the heart of Washington,
D.C. is incredibly important.
I think one thing that none of the other Commissioners have highlighted, moving the bike lanes from the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue to the south I think is a -- could be a
tremendous improvement for a lot of different reasons.
And just making sure that the streetscape reflects the actual needs of the people who currently use it I think is very important as well.
But thank you, again, to our team. I know how important a project this is to NCPC and to so many others and I’m really excited to see this come back around as we move towards this project’s ultimate conclusion, which as Commissioner Stidham said quite well, we’ve been working on this for a long time and it’s exciting to see the progress that’s already been made.
With that, are there any further questions or comments?
(NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE)
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Hearing none, can the Secretary please confirm the motion and second and then, take the vote by roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes.
The motion was made by Commissioner
Stidham and seconded by Commissioner Salesse. Commissioner Cozart? COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Salesse? COMMISSIONER SALESSE: 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? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Administrator Forst? COMMISSIONER FORST: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash?
COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you, the motion carries.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, the motion is passed.
And with that, we move on to Agenda Item 9C which is a request to approve comments on the George Washington Memorial Parkway Vista Management Plan.
And we have Mike Weil with us to speak about that. 8754 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY VISTA
MANAGEMENT PLAN
MR. WEIL: Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and Members of the Commission.
The National Park Service is developing
a long-term management plan for 15 vistas along a 2.65 mile stretch of the George Washington Memorial Parkway which is located in Arlington, Virginia.
As part of the Park Service’s ongoing environmental assessment study process, they are requesting concept comments from our Commission here today as part of their scoping phase under NEPA, which is an opportunity for NCPC to comment early in the plan’s development process.
The project’s 30-day scoping period began on March 12th and extends through April 11th.
And as shown here on this timeline, based on scoping feedback, the Park Service will prepare a draft EA and then, return back to NCPC for a review and comment this summer.
This map shows the 2.65 mile section of the Parkway where the future vista management plan would apply, extending between Chain Bridge in the north and Spout Run in the south.
And the planned segment is part of the
larger 25-mile long George Washington Memorial Parkway which honors the nation’s first President as a scenic roadway that protects the cultural and natural resources along the Potomac River.
The Parkway is part of a comprehensive system of parks, parkways, and recreational areas surrounding the nation’s Capitol.
This vista management planning effort was borne out of a larger rehabilitation project for the northern portion of the Parkway which NPS initiated in 2022 to improve safety, drainage, and the user experience while also preserving the Parkway’s historic character.
And this rehabilitation project is now virtually complete.
To prepare for this vista management plan, NPS previously conducted a visual resource inventory and assessment study to systematically identify vista locations along the Parkway as well as their type and quality.
The five different vista ratings
identified through the study, the vista management plan considers the vistas that are rated in the two highest category ratings.
The superior class vistas with striking and dramatic views along the Parkway, typically with manmade features in the distance.
And then, the high class vistas capture the scenic beauty of the Palisades and gorges area along the Potomac River.
And we commend the National Park Service and our Executive Director’s recommendation and comments for developing their vista management plan based on this previous visual assessment study.
As background, the GW Parkway is significant as it was the first comprehensively designed modern roadway, built by the federal government.
And the project preserved extensive Potomac River shoreline habitat.
Congress established the Parkway on May 29th, 1930 with the federal -- with federal
funding appropriated under the Capper-Cramton Act.
The Parkway protects the landscape along the Potomac River, offers scenic views of Washington, D.C. and the river, and also functions as an important transportation link between multiple historic sites, memorials, and scenic and recreational areas within the Washington Metropolitan region.
Previous to vista clearing and restoration work was undertaken in 2024 with 10 of the 15 subject vista locations, either partially or completely cleared along the Parkway.
This clearance work has been paused since then temporarily so the Park Service can complete additional NEPA compliance work as part of the future long-term plan to management these vista areas.
The purpose of the plan is to manage these Parkway vistas with recognition of the GW Parkway as a scenic, historically significant,
and as part of our regional system of parks, parkways, and recreational areas.
And we express our support for this purpose as part of our Executive Director’s recommendation and comments.
So, here are the plans, 15 subject vistas, shown here in blue, which were established as part of the original Parkway design.
And we have several Comprehensive Plan policies that support their preservation as shown here.
Based on the Parkway’s higher elevation above the river in the north, the superior class vistas are concentrated there with long views down the river.
While the high class vistas capture the scenic beauty of the Potomac River in the south, based on the Parkway’s lower elevation there and closer proximity to the river.
Five of the subject vistas are southward facing, shaded here in red. And these
are meaningful since they allow Parkway users to view elements of D.C.’s charismatic skyline as they approach the city.
And then, the ten northbound vistas, shown here in blue, are noteworthy in that they have fewer visual obstructions such as passing traffic, based on the northbound lanes riverside position along the Parkway.
Most of the plan’s views, 11 of 15, are classified as open with unobstructed wide panoramic views and without woody vegetation in the foreground.
And then, here are the two vista overlook locations identified in the plan with parking areas, acceleration and deceleration lanes so that people can stop and get out of their vehicles to enjoy the scenery.
Currently, there are five different potential vista management concept alternatives ranging from maximum vista preservation to full reforestation of these areas.
And I will now briefly walk you through
each of the potential management alternatives.
The first alternative is the NEPA-required, no action baseline alternative.
And in this scenario, the Park Service would allow the natural reforestation of all 15 vista areas, which would result in a continuous natural forested landscape between the Parkway and river.
Alternative 2 would restore and maintain all 15 vistas, consisting of both superior and high class vista categories, which are important elements to the Parkway’s original design.
Under Alternative 3, the Park Service would maintain 9 of the 15 vista locations, with all 7 of the superior class vistas, plus 1 additional overlook vista location, which is rated high class.
And then, one other high class vista location, Number 8, which overlaps with Location Number 29, which is one of the superior class vistas.
And so, clearing one vista location would also simultaneously clear the other.
Alternative 4 would maintain the two overlook vistas in the future.
And then, finally, the Park Service would actively replant and manage all 15 vista locations under Alternative 5.
And this would result in the continuous natural forested landscape between the Parkway and the river, similar to Alternative 1.
And so, we highlight that plan Alternatives 1 and 5 would result in a more natural continuous forested landscape along the river as one of our findings, which would not be consistent with several Comprehensive Plan policies that support Parkway vista preservation.
We have a second finding that summarizes the differences between Alternatives 2 through 4 with Alternative 2 fully restoring and maintaining all 15 vista locations along the Parkway while the other alternatives would only
preserve some of these vista locations.
Alternative 3 would maintain 9 of 15 vista locations.
And then, Alternative 4 would preserve the 2 overlook vista locations in the future.
And since this is still early in the Park Service’s EA process, we find that additional information and evaluation is needed for the Commission to better understand the tradeoffs between the different alternatives within the context of historic preservation, resource protection, maintenance, and funding.
We note the vista management plan is still early in its EA process in the scoping phase. And we recommend that the Park Service continue its coordination with all appropriate stakeholders, members of the public, and consulting parties through their ongoing NEPA and Section 106 processes.
So, with that, that concludes my presentation. All of these comments are included in our staff report to the Commission.
We have also incorporated many of our comments into today’s presentation.
And I would like to note that we have five Park Service representatives here with us today, one of whom is Jennifer Madello, who is the Superintendent of the George Washington Memorial Parkway who would like to provide a brief statement in support of the Park Service vista plan immediately following my presentation.
And then, we also have four other Park Service members here today who are available for any questions that you may have as well.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thanks a lot, Mike.
Superintendent Madello, if you’d like to, yes, please, whenever you’re ready.
MS. MADELLO: I’m Jen Madello. I’m the Superintendent of the George Washington Memorial Parkway.
I’m joined by members of our park leadership team here.
I have our Deputy Superintendent, Vince Vaise, our Chief of Resource Management, Maureen Joseph, and our Coastal Resource Manager, Megan Bailey.
So, I really thank you very much for your time and your consideration as we are early in this process.
I’m very much looking forward to getting your feedback on this.
As part of our ongoing commitment to the North Parkway section rehabilitation project, this is a major undertaking, the first time the road has been rehabilitated since it was originally completed, this section, in the 1960s.
This project is nearing completion.
As we were going through this rehabilitation, we also wanted to look at the historic vistas and take care of those.
As you know, we started that work as described by the staff here.
And as we were undertaking that work,
we determined that the scope and scale of removal of native plants was much bigger than we originally thought.
And we paused it and we decided to go through a public process with this.
We have completed the NHPA compliance on this and the vista rehabilitation is part of the programmatic agreement that we have.
But we decided we have to go through NEPA and the public process.
So, here we are accounting for that work that was already done plus our ultimate goal to restore the vistas that are in our vista rehabilitation guide.
That being said, we are really committed to this full review. We believe it brings transparency to the process and to what we are doing and will help us weigh the impacts on cultural resources and natural resources with the visitor experience.
We started with public scoping without a preferred alternative in hand because we want
to understand what the public values as users of the Parkway.
We also want to evaluate through this process the funding and staffing resources that it will take to actually maintain these vistas for the long-term.
So, that will be part of our process.
And our goal is to establish this longterm vista management plan, that’s a part that supports our mission for the Parkway to balance that visitor experience and our resource preservation.
I don’t have much else to say there on that, so I’m here if you all have any questions and other members of the team.
Thank you, again, for your time.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Superintendent and thank you, again, Mike.
Do any Commissioners have any questions either for our team or for the Park Service?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I do, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER DIXON: The Parkway, does
it have bike access? MS. MADELLO: Not on this section. COMMISSIONER DIXON: Not on this
section? Right. MS. MADELLO: The Mount Vernon Trail
that goes from Mount Vernon -COMMISSIONER DIXON: Right. MS. MADELLO: -- to essentially the
Theodore Roosevelt Island, this section does not have that bike access.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Right, I mean, I think it would be awkward to make that happen, right?
MS. MADELLO: Yes. COMMISSIONER DIXON: Okay. MS. MADELLO: We have 26 million
drivers a year on that section of the Parkway. COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. MADELLO: No shoulders. COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes, I learned
about -- I’m learning about the hard way. I used to be Senior Vice President at PRC and the systems and my chair, I was in charge of.
And then, one day, I decided, I lived in Dupont Circle, to ride my bike to PRC. And I discovered I shouldn’t be the Parkway with my bike.
I managed to make it without being stopped by anybody, but I realized then it didn’t go all the way up the Parkway.
Right, okay.
MS. MADELLO: We have the Potomac Heritage Trail -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I know, I know that, I’ve used that.
MS. MADELLO: -- that’s accessible to bicyclists.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes, I know it terminates now. I got the message.
Thank you.
MS. MADELLO: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I think I expressed
the sense of the Commission and our professional staff when I say that I’m very happy that Commissioner Dixon survived this interaction, but it could have gone very differently, but we’re glad that you’re here, sir.
Are there any other questions for the presentation team?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: I have one.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: So, one of the things that’s not really clear in the different alternatives is the level of effort.
And pretty much, you have to -- you come away with the conclusion that the level of effort is the same across the alternatives.
And you mentioned funding.
So, I think it’s helpful to understand, in reality, are we looking at 2 really well maintained vistas, trading off against 15 lesser maintained vistas?
You know, because we know how budgets can be constrained and there are a lot of things
that the Park Service is trying to do with its maintenance backlog.
And so, that’s one thought is just, okay, let, you know, understanding if we really are looking at, say, an alternative where all 15 vistas are going to be maintained at the level that you aspire to, just knowing the other competing demands on the budget.
MS. MADELLO: So, I know you’re aware with your background that we rely on the annual appropriations process.
So, I cannot guarantee funding is available for many of the things we want to do. And vista management is one of those.
I do think there is a varying level of effort in terms of staff, contracts, financial resources, for the different scenarios here.
And we’re going to have to look at that closely once we get the feedback from the public, feedback that you all have, to take into consideration our ultimate goal.
And then, what can we realistically do
in the long-term with the funding that we may have available to us.
And what’s the tradeoff for other things that we have to accomplish.
So, we’ve structured this with the multiple alternatives, one being looking at those overlooks that have the pull outs where people can stop and take that view in.
And then, one being all 15 of them, which would be a much more significant effort than just the 2.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Superintendent.
Do any other Commissioners have questions at this time?
We do have -
Oh, sorry, sir.
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: How much did you say goes through there?
MS. MADELLO: Twenty-six million drivers a year.
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Yes, I mean,
it’s a pretty busy place and pulling off to use the vistas, have you looked at that from a safety and security perspective?
I know that’s probably not part of this discussion.
MS. MADELLO: Well, so, that will be one of the factors that we consider in our evaluation and we’re looking forward to hearing from the public to see if they have any safety concerns around this.
But we’ll definitely look at that, top priority for me is safety.
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Yes.
Do you know how much those vistas are used? Any traffic?
MS. MADELLO: The overlooks, in particular, I don’t have that answer of the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Any other questions?
(NO AUDIBLE RESPONSE)
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We do have a member
of the public who signed up to testify on this
project.
We have a Mr. Glenn Tobin.
MR. TOBIN: Can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We can hear you clear, sir. If you want to continue whenever you’re ready to proceed.
MR. TOBIN: Absolutely. Thank you for the opportunity to comment today and I’d like to also commend Superintendent Madello and her team for creating such an open process. Chairman Scharf and other commissioners, as I said, my name is Glenn Tobin. I would say I love the GW Parkway. I’m an active user of the park. I’ve also volunteered for thousands of hours to help improve it. Like many of you, I love a good view and spectacular scenery.
I urge the Commission to consider adding four points to its feedback to the NPS regarding the upcoming EA. First, I urge that you request that the EA consider the impact of both the trees that were improperly removed in
2024 and any trees that could still be removed. The Park Service is describing the as-is situation as one in which the trees and forest have already been partially removed. As a citizen, this just doesn’t seem right to me. Actions were taken without authority and now the Park Service seeks to avoid accounting for those actions.
Second, I urge the Commission to be cautious in concluding there is clear historical evidence supporting the actual vistas being proposed. There are no documents contemporary to the creation of the parkway that describe the 15 proposed vistas other than the two overlooks of course. What does exist are historical photographs, some of which you can see in the presentation today, which I’d argue don’t prove intent. The photographs document large scale earth moving during which hills were lowered and valleys were filled. Vegetation necessarily was removed in that process. The absence of trees in the beautiful photos reflects construction
disturbance, not an enduring design vision.
Third, I urge the Commission, and it’s already been discussed a little bit, to request the Park Service demonstrate they can and are committing the budget to maintain any recommended vista over the long term. The challenge with open vistas is that they will be nearly impossible to maintain over time and creating open space will threaten the nearby beautiful and valuable natural areas. Fasting moving invasive plants were not problematic in the 1960s. Today, they cause huge problems in the park which you can see driving on the parkway. If more open land is created, the problem will be worse as invasives thrive on open land and disturbed soil. If invasives are not successfully managed, the beautiful surrounding forest will be overrun and destroyed.
If you want proof, look below the two existing overlooks and you will see acres of ravaged natural lands from the invasive kudzu
plant and the devastation is expanding every year. Managing invasives in and around the new vista areas would be complicated and expensive. No vista will remain open without substantial cost into perpetuity; even if there were budget to manage this today and there’s not, we have no guarantee for the long term.
Finally, I urge the Commission to request that all users of the park are considered in the evaluation of the alternatives. Drivers on the parkway are not the only users who benefit from the scenery of the park. Hikers on the Congressionally established Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail, kayakers and boaters on the river, people across the Potomac all enjoy the scenery of the park and can be affected by the vista project. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Tobin. Are there any questions for Mr. Tobin before we proceed? Thank you for commenting and being with us today, sir. With that, that concludes
public testimony. Is there a motion to approve comments on the George Washington Memorial Parkway Vista Management Plan?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: So moved.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Hearing a motion and a second, let’s open it up to the Commission for discussion and I’ll start the deliberations again with Commissioner Stidham.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Thank you and thank you, staff, for the presentation. I just really have to say that we’re in the middle of a public comment period. We want to hear from all users, whether you drive a car, ride a bike, hike a trail, whatever you do in the park, we want to hear from you and we want you to weigh in on the alternatives as presented. It’s open to the public and we look forward to hearing from the public.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo?
COMMISSIONER ARGO: No additional
comments or questions. I appreciate the presentation. There was some good information that we need to have and I felt like I needed to have and that’s it.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER ARGO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Vice Chairman Levenbach?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: It sounds like the process you’re going through is very deliberative and you’re thinking about your budget, which is going to be important when you evaluate the alternatives. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank You, Vice Chairman. Commissioner Blair?
COMMISSIONER BLAIR: No comment.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Blair. Commissioner Tunstall-Williams?
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Thank
you. First, I’d like to thank the Park Service for the thoughtful approach to this project. One of the beauties of coming along the parkway and I typically mostly use it coming to and from either airport and I’m always welcomed home by the beautiful views and so that’s something I really appreciate about the parkway, so I’m glad to see that you guys are thinking about it. But, I also as a fellow federal agency, recognize what can you maintain, what does that look like, what is the budget and so I think as the Commission continues, as well as the general public, it would be great to see additional information. Some more imagery from each of the viewpoints so we can kind of prioritize the understanding that there might be a limited number that you can restore. We can figure out what might make sense. I think also a matrix, either a pro/con or looking at what is achievable within low, medium, high budget that kind of stuff so that it allows us to better make informed decisions about the alternative
that you guys might consider. Otherwise, thank you for the work.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I think there’s a record being set here today. The record is the number of Smokey the Bears we have in the room here, but that’s fine.
My comment is this, I do think that in moving forward it would be nice if they had some record, a record of the number of people who use the vistas. I’m surprised you don’t. I mean it’s probably not a hard thing to get a meter on, but you might also put some questionnaires in those that people might be willing to pick up and fill out for you, when they use them, just notes about how they use them, why they use them. Just something very simple that could be collected that will give you feedback. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Chairman, if I could.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes, ma’am.
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Commissioner Dixon, Smokey the Bear is the Forest Service by the way.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Oh, my gosh.
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: So, I can’t resist to not point that out since it is sort of a pet peeve of my own.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: These are just -
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: He’s our park ranger.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I’m sorry, Rangers.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I would also like to note that there is, in fact, a federal criminal statute that makes it a crime to commercially misappropriate the likeness of Smokey the Bear, Woodsy Owl or any of their accompanying woodland creatures, so for those of you who throw the name of Smokey the Bear around all willy nilly
be warned.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I got it, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: With that having been said, Commissioner Cash?
COMMISSIONER CASH: Okay, steal my thunder, but I just want to say so long as the overlook that has the best view of the Three Sisters Formation out there can have a great interpretive signage element that talks about the perils of poor federal planning, I think that I would be all in favor of it. Thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: As a user of the parkway, I guess a driver on the parkway, I would just encourage as a consideration of part of this process, we had a fatality on the parkway a couple of weeks ago where a tree fell on a car during rush hour. If we’re going to be dealing with vegetation here, what do we need to
do to address any trees that could pose dangers to the commuters on the parkway as well?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart?
COMMISSIONER COZART: Appreciate the work of the Park Service and the work of the staff on this project. No additional comments.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Salesse?
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Again, I’d echo those last comments, just appreciate everything you do. The parkway is beautiful. The overlooks are just tremendous and thank God, we’re preserving some of that, but how you sustain it at that level is probably the key to this, so thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. I’ll just say for myself I’d like to thank the National Park Service for seeking comments on this whole plan, for the obvious attention to detail that what we’ve received from them reveals. I’d like to thank the
superintendent and her team for being here today. It’s great to see you all and thank you for what you do for the Park Service and for the community. As always, I’d like to thank our team for their customary attention to detail and the presentation we have before us.
I think it’s a very interesting plan. Invasive kudzu, I think that’s the first time we’ve had as explicit a reference to that, since I joined the Commission, but it’s a real issue in a lot of nature areas. I think it’s something worth considering, so I thank, Mr. Tobin, as well for joining us. I would just say I look forward to seeing how this project resolves. I think balancing the needs of the various populations implicated here is going to be interesting as well as, as Stuart is always quick to remind us, the budgetary demands of the federal government. We look forward to seeing how this project develops and hopefully bringing it in, in one way or another, for a successful planning approval conclusion.
With that, are there any other further
questions or comments? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, could you please confirm the motion in the second and then take the vote by roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Commissioner Stidham and seconded by Commissioner Dixon. Commissioner Cozart?
COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Salesse? COMMISSIONER SALESSE: 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? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? COMMISSIONER BLAIR: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Tunstall-
Williams? COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion carries. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you.
8763 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, 472 15TH STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC – WHITE HOUSE VISITOR SCREENING FACILITY
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: With that, we move on to Agenda Item 9D, which as I referenced earlier is a request to approve comments on concept plans for a new White House visitor screening facility.
With us today, we have Lee Webb from our team, who is going to be presenting that
matter. Are we going to the park? Did I mess
this up?
UNKNOWN MALE: No.
MR. WEBB: Mr. Chair, we’re bringing up the right one.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Got scared there for a second.
(Off record comments.)
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I love the leopards, but the screening facility is really exciting as well.
MR. WEBB: All right, I think we’ve got the right one up, so we will start. Good afternoon, Chairman Scarf and Commissioners. The Executive Office of the President in conjunction with the Unites States Secret Service and with the National Park Service has submitted concept plans for the construction of a new permanent security screening facility for visitors to the White House Complex and downtown Washington, D.C.
The project will be located within the
White House grounds, in President’s Park, north of the National Mall. As you can see on this image, the new visitor screening facility consists of two components; a below grade facility with an entrance plaza on the south side of Sherman Park at the corner of E and 15th Streets and a ground level facility on East Executive Avenue between the proposed White House Ballroom and the Treasury Building.
The facility will be used for visitors and arriving for tours and events. Staff notes that the existing White House and President’s Park Master Plan from the year 2000, envisioned the creation of an underground screening facility located at the nearby Department of Commerce on 15th Street.
As this is a concept review, the focus of today’s presentation and analysis is to receive Commission comments and feedback prior to the preparation of a more detailed preliminary submission. In this case, the focus of the review is understanding the
appropriateness of the project for the site and context, understanding any particularly unique or complex issues that need to be addressed and identifying any stakeholders that may need to be further involved.
As such, in today’s presentation, staff will identify comments for the Commission to adopt as guidance for further project development. The applicant has indicated that the proposed location for the visitor screening facility was strategically selected with consideration to multiple factors including security, functionality, visitor flow, aesthetics and cost. Siting the facility was performed in a manner to mitigate the permanent to the surrounding areas as much as possible. Alternate locations around the White House Complex were considered extensively before selecting the preferred location. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission find the applicant considered an adequate number of other locations for the new screening facility, but
these were dismissed due to impacts and functional challenges.
President’s Park is an 82-acre park that services the setting for the White House and other federal buildings as well as memorials and monuments. It is a nationally significant cultural landscape in the monumental core of Washington, D.C. and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. As I mentioned earlier, the below grade component of the facility will be located under Sherman Park, which contains a statue of General William T. Sherman.
Here are a few images and views of Sherman Park as it looks today. Currently, no trespass signs and layers of bike racks are being used to prevent pedestrian access to Sherman Park because the previous temporary fencing on the west side has been removed due to the East Wing Modernization construction. The Secret Service intends to reopen access to the Sherman statue and the park via the existing
stairways off 15th Street, but needs to determine a permanent security solution in between the park and the White House.
As these images show, today the Secret Service uses temporary trailers on East Executive Avenue to screen visitors following an initial identification screening on Hamilton Place in temporary tents. Now, let’s look at the concept design for the new visitor screening facility.
Here is a rendering that shows the new screening facility with the entrance plaza at the corner of E and 15th Streets on the south side of Sherman Park leading to the below grade facility and the ground level facility on East Executive Avenue between the proposed White House Ballroom and the Treasury Building. The below grade portion of the facility is approximately 33,000 square feet. The depth of the building accounts for 12 feet clear floor to underside of structure, 2 feet allocated for concrete structure and the minimum of 3 feet
ground cover above. Most of the proposed structure is intentionally positioned below grade within the park’s west quadrant to reduce visual impact and to avoid a large existing sewer tunnel that passes through the southeast corner of the park.
The project will require removal of the vegetation and ground within Sherman Park to create the below ground facility. The applicant has indicated that landscape restoration, including new tree plantings, will be provided within all impacted zones to reinstate and enhance the park’s character.
The ground level facility on East Executive Avenue will be 4,000 square feet and where visitors will exit once they are screened in the below ground facility. Badged White House workers and contractors will be able to enter the White House grounds once they go through the new ground level facility.
In terms of use, visitor queuing would begin outside in the lower plaza at the
southeast corner of 15th and E Streets where visitors form entry lanes for the initial ID check at the vestibule. Visitors then proceed through the lobby to a second ID check point followed by the prescreened sequence. The primary screening area is sized in an open floor plan to accommodate the equipment and spatial requirements necessary to achieve the throughput capacities established by the Secret Service for large events, including those anticipated in the new ballroom.
Upon successfully clearing primary screening, visitors proceed to escalators that return them to grade level north of the secure fence line along East Executive Avenue. For the new ground level facility, the applicant is proposing an initial architectural form and materiality based upon existing security booth vocabulary used throughout the campus. The building composition incorporates a sloped, standing-seam metal roof with extended overhangs supported by columns along with stone cladding
and a granite base. However, materials for the project will be refined as the new design is developed.
For the next review, staff recommends that the Commission requests the applicant provide additional views from the Treasury Building’s south elevation towards the new ground level facility. In addition, staff recommends that the Commission encourage the applicant to explore opportunities to refine the design of the ground level facility to be more compatible with its setting next to high style classical buildings, such as the Treasury Building.
Also, for the next review, staff recommends that the Commission request information on the location of the mature trees to be removed to construct the below ground facility, as well as landscape plan showing proposed new tree and landscape plantings, consistent with NCPC policies. In addition, we request the applicant provide the proposed
materials for the entrance and plaza areas into the below ground screening facility.
While the proposed White House visitor screening facility provides a permanent solution to ensure the safety of visitors and workers to the White House Complex, by removing temporary trailers and tents currently used, this is only in a relatively small section of President’s Park along 15th Street, NW. As such, a similar holistic and comprehensive approach to perimeter security and public space is needed for all of President’s and Lafayette Parks, which currently have layers of temporary fencing and racks.
We want to share with you images of the conditions around these parts that you see today, starting with these images at Lafayette Park showing the temporary fencing that is currently up. Next, are images of 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue showing layers of racks that are currently used as security barriers. Moving south to 15th and E Streets just below Sherman Park where you can see additional racks
and other temporary barriers, these images are on Constitution Avenue looking north towards the White House. Now, moving to the west, is 17th and E Street showing the current conditions of the temporary perimeter security and then finally, moving to 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue.
Staff recommends the Commission finds the existing use of temporary security elements around President’s Park and the White House, particularly along Pennsylvania Avenue and E Street continue to detract from the visitor experience and should be improved to help beautify President’s Park once the East Wing Modernization project and the White House visitors screening facility are completed.
A permanent plan for a well-designed perimeter security system will require coordination among a number of agencies to be successful. The applicant has indicated it will submit individual security projects, both temporary and permanent throughout the White
House Complex and surrounding areas to the Commission in the near future.
Understanding how all of these projects work together to both beautify and protect the area will be important. As such, staff recommends the Commission request the applicant work with the National Park Service, the General Services Administration, the Secret Service and others to brief the Commission on a comprehensive security and beautification plan for the White House Complex, President’s Park and the vicinity that will replace the temporary security measures with an attractive, unified, permanent design solution without further limiting public access.
To conclude my presentation, staff recommends that the Commission approve these comments on the concept plan supporting the project goals to provide a permanent White House visitor screening facility for the United States Secret Service that can support security screening needs for visitor tours, large scale
events, White House staff and contractors.
As I have covered the Executive Director’s recommendations in my presentation, I will not repeat them, but they are here for your reference.
At this time, I would like to introduce Andy Stohs with the applicant team, who would like to say a few words to the Commission and he’s also joined with Jeff Harner, who is with the design team and they are here to help answer any questions the Commission may have.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thanks a lot, Lee.
MR. STOHS: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chairman, staff. I appreciate the opportunity to present this project for submission with our other partners, Park Service, Treasury, Executive Office of the President.
Screening facilities at the White House Complex are not a new effort for us. The service has worked with Commissions over the decades on several temporary solutions, some
permanent solutions that have yet to be built or funded. We’ve worked with our stakeholders to develop a solution here that we think is very thoughtful, appropriate and permanent and effective.
The White House Complex is unique. It’s a 24/7, 365 high security facility. It also operates a museum to the public. It also operates as the Office for the Executive Office of the President and the living quarters for the President’s family. Those present unique challenges and we need to be able to screen appropriately for all situations. We’ve operated out of temporary structures since 2005 and so we bring this to you to work with you and the other Commissions at the CFA to come up with an appropriate solution that we’d like to build on the complex.
We’re here to answer any of your questions and look forward to those. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thanks a lot for that. Do any commissioners have any questions
either for Lee or for the Secret Service team? Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I’d like to know how much outside closure will people have? Sheltered, will they be sheltered for most of this area or is it I’m thinking of queues out in the weather and so forth?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: That would be a good question for the Secret Service.
MR. HARNER: Yes, so the queuing currently happens on the sidewalk. We’re bringing them down into a plaza area.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Good.
MR. HARNER: And then we have a lobby for extended queuing once you get inside, so it’ll be a faster first ID check.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Good.
MR. HARNER: And then the entire process that you’re going through, there’s queuing within the underground piece where it can be completely covered, but the actual plaza area is not covered for that portion that you’re
ramping down.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yeah, but it is likely the large groups will be inside -
MR. HARNER: Correct, yes.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Under shelter for the most part?
MR. HARNER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: That’s fine, I just wondered because it’s pretty bad to be outside like this queuing outside. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Do any other commissioners have questions?
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Yes, I have a question. As you point out Secret Service, Park Service, a number of federal partners having a comprehensive plan. Is that under development or is there -- how are you working together to make sure that that can be done? And that may be beyond the scope of this, but I’m just -
MR. HARNER: I will address it. Again,
this facility primarily underground incorporating within our existing perimeters and we’re focusing this presentation on that, but we have started a project that is again, we have had a couple of projects that are temporary that have come across (inaudible). We’re taking a holistic master plan approach on the fencing barriers around the White House Complex. I know when we came for the White House fence, we discussed that.
Things have evolved through the threats and our operational procedures, but we are capturing all of that, again, Lafayette Park first revision, Sherman Park the larger ellipse is a little more challenging. We’re looking at that holistically so that we can talk about what the appearance of those barriers are and their function and when they’re used and how they’re used so we will do that under another project. Any fence in Sherman Park doesn’t really coordinate with this project as much.
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Stuart?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Gentlemen, to that point, when you are looking at barriers, like bollards, if they’re needed, I want to encourage you to look at some of the security architecture we looked at once we -- a long time ago, we developed a kit of things you could use in replacing bollards. Things that could be useful for tourists to sit on or use, otherwise, it’s just all these bollards all over which are not functional.
MR. STOHS: Understood. We’re very familiar with the product that’s put out by NCPC years ago on all the different avenues and things, benches, telephone poles and everything where you incorporate where it blends into the surroundings, but still defines a hard vehicle perimeter.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Stuart?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Sorry, but as someone who has queued a lot, for the White House, I’m very excited about the project. So,
I wanted to share a couple of thoughts. One is I’m glad Commissioner Dixon raised the point about the throughput and how people queue. I had a couple of questions in advance and I appreciate a little bit of the back and forth. That for me as a very important aspect is does it solve all the problems we saw here with screening people? So, thanks for asking that and if we still have long lines that are exposed to the street, it’s not really solving, I think, a key problem.
MR. STOHS: I think we’re taking people off the public street as much as possible. Again, depending on the size of the event. We like staggered arrivals because the facility can only accommodate so many. Also, where they’re going can only accommodate. The House actually has a limit on how many people you can actually have in there for tours.
As the event planners develop, they will be pre-function spaces, so we’ll have people showing up at 15-minute intervals that
maximizes seven lanes of screening equipment and five lanes of ID checks, so it will be more than you’ve ever seen. There are going to be events, like the Easter Egg Roll and large 5,000-6,000 person events that we’re not going to build this facility to main -- that’s well above what we need to be pushing people down and then come back up to go to the south grounds. Those have been taken off, but all the major events that are interior, we will be able, with a staggered arrival, you’ll have 1,000 people flowing through this rather quickly, but it’s still going to take more than 10-15 minutes.
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yeah, yeah, great. Okay, a couple of more things. I think it would be helpful to see all the temporary infrastructure that comes down as a result of this. I think there was a little bit there in the materials, but just having seen how much the security footprint has expanded over the years. Like, I remember, not that I’m old, but -- at least I don’t think I am, but I mean you can
walk right into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, right up the front steps and go in and now there are so many parts that are inaccessible now and it’s an inaccessible due to temporary barriers. I think it would be helpful to see all the temporary barriers that come down if that’s possible.
MR. STOHS: Understood, again, the goals are to limit people to get into the proper of the White House, Treasury and so forth like that. We will take that into consideration as much as we can. I also remember where the park was completely open over Lafayette. Those pictures are showing there’s a construction project that’s in Lafayette. There’s the East Wing Modernization project, so there’s an awful lot of temporary fencing that is in those photos that’s not normally there, but there is still more there post 2021-2023 events.
So, we’re going to balance that again with our efforts in designing a holistic approach. Maybe some things that are more
permanent, but that are open and only closed as needed. We do close the parks on a regular basis throughout the day for security events and for just other reasons. So, having that infrastructure in place to facilitate that easier and doesn’t look as junky is our goal also.
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yes, and the last thing I had, is this the final, like the materials, have they been decided or are these still in flux?
MR. HARNER: At this concept level, we started with what the campus standard is for these type of pop up facilities. In the last three weeks, this has evolved a lot in terms of materiality and architecture and looking at the Executive Order of the President. The design has elevated quite a bit since this presentation.
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Any other questions? Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER CASH: What’s the total square footage underground there -
(Simultaneous speaking.)
MR. HARNER: It’s 33,000 underground plus 4,000 for the top piece and then about 5,000 in the plaza.
COMMISSIONER CASH: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Any other questions? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve comments on concept plans for the White House visitors screening facility?
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: So moved.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I’ll open it now to the Commission for discussion and we’ll start with Commissioner Tunstall-Williams.
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Okay. So, I know that this is a huge need. I’ve queued through there as well. I’ve come from
the EEOB side, from this side. I appreciate that you’re trying to put it underground, that is great. I think in the comments on the earlier study, the Capitol Visitor screening was raised and it can be done elegantly. I happened to be in Quebec City over the holidays and the entry to their Parliament, they’ve done a similar thing that does not detract from the building inside of it, like the Treasury.
I’m confident that you guys can do that, but I would -- a couple of things I’d like in the future presentations is a little bit more about the context, particularly for the above grade screening. What really struck me was the long view down Pennsylvania Avenue. It almost seems like the new building is going to block the view of what would have gone through to the White House. I know the ballroom is changing that as well, but it would be nice to understand that context.
I also, one thing that I encourage you to look at is that entrance right there at the
Sherman Park. The pedestrians and the vehicles coming out of the ellipse in the parking there, there might be some conflicts there, so I would encourage you, particularly for large events, to think about where that it’s sited and try to deconflict vehicles. I don’t know if there is a way to do some of the prescreening at the White House Visitor Center that exists in the Department of Commerce, then they come over. Maybe it’s multi-stakes, obviously it doesn’t work for people who have limited mobility, but it might be another way to address for really large groups how to do that.
Lastly, I really, I know that’s not the purpose of the presentation, but I really can’t express enough how much this area would benefit from a Master Plan, a Security Master Plan. On slide 23, there was an outline, I think that’s what it needs to be. Even coming from GSA over here, every time I walk over I’m like okay, which way do I go? Do I go up to H Street? Do I go to Constitution? (audio interference.)
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I don’t think your mic is on.
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: -- I guess my comments got (inaudible). Is there a way to know where you can cross and so providing a little bit more surety while trying to cross, it really needs barriers so I think that’s a big thing for that parking lot that is essentially developed so that it serves people’s (inaudible).
Just trying to be thoughtful about how we can address that in the broader context, so understand that’s outside of the realm of this particular scope, but I would encourage all the players that have a stake here to get together on a Master Plan that will facilitate the review of each project.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Nothing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you,
Commissioner. Commissioner Cash?
COMMISSIONER CASH: Maybe part of me feels like it’s a little bit too soon, but I will say I think that it’s dwarfed by the other stuff that’s going on around there, so I don’t think I have as much concern there anymore, but I do appreciate that we’re kind of thinking -hopefully thinking more holistically about the security around the White House.
One of the things that came to mind is are we looking at something similar on the 17th Street side? Because 15th Street, I mean, I walk along there all the time and I mean there’s so much pick up/drop off going on there, but I imagine it’s happening on the other side. I think that things are actually a little bit more congested on the 17th Street side. I don’t know where the -- with the business that goes in and out of the White House or the visitors coming in and out, but it seems to me that we might be directing people over to the 15th Street side. I think that just speaks to the need for kind of
the planning around it. Like is that where the people really are coming from because there’s no parking or anything over there.
I just think that all that speaks a lot to the need for looking at this holistically to make sure we’re not just plopping a visitors screening facility in because we had a little bit of space at 15th and Pennsylvania to do it. So, if you want to mention anything about the 17th Street side and about future accommodations, but that’s the big thing that popped for me.
MR. STOHS: Actually, NCPC approved a GSA project in 2011, I believe, and it was funded -- well, it lost funding in 2012. It was a below the plaza, the EEOB. So, there is a screening solution there, it just has not been funded and it needs to be updated from the design, because it’s a bit stale, it’s 15 years old. But the service in that is for the support of the EEOB and everybody for day-to-day work and visitors on that side.
Part of our napkin Master Plan is actually north and south, east and west facilities. That would have three to four lanes to be able to accommodate everything. We have a temporary building on the southwest that’s our pop up right there. That was put in as part of a project that was going on and has remained until we get that north going there. There are thoughtful solutions on how we screen people and we look which populations are coming and going.
Once you enter the White House Complex, you aren’t allowed to go everywhere, so there are pockets of populations between Treasury and EEOB and the White House and so forth, so the screening of those individuals is very key as to where that occurs.
COMMISSIONER CASH: I think to piggyback off of what you said, I mean I’ve been there for some of the -- I know what you call it when you go and look at all the plants and stuff there and -
MR. STOHS: Garden tours.
COMMISSIONER CASH: Yeah, so I mean one of the things that you notice is and those are those big events like you’re talking about, but you still you get onto the grounds and it seems like you’re just ushered out wherever you can go. Whatever happens to be open that day. I think that anything to kind of just make it all more coherent and make it all more predictable is to the good for anyone visiting the White House. Again, on this side, it just happens to be there’s a lot going on, on this side of the White House, but I think that it is a good solution and looking underground can work in some of these situations, so if 17th Street can eventually be reimagined or refunded, I think that would be to the good of things. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: No comments.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart?
COMMISSIONER COZART: No additional
comments. Thanks to the staff for their work on this project.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Salesse?
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Staff already mentioned the things I wanted to say. Thank you all for what you do. You pointed out what the pictures didn’t showed, pictures are worth 1,000 words, doesn’t look too great, right and certainly the high security issues that you have to deal with on a daily basis, I do think we need a Master Plan. There has to be a sense of urgency to this kind of activity, especially around the White House. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Stidham?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Just to echo what Mr. Salesse already said and we’re working together on this project. I think a picture speaks millions of rights in this case. When you look at that facility, the temporary nature of it and how rough it looks, for screening that
many people over that period of time is just not meant for a temporary facility. We really need a facility that is appropriate for an entrance to this area. I think that we are in the beginning stages of getting there, so thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo?
COMMISSIONER ARGO: No additional comments. You did all the work on this and I look forward to seeing the next iteration. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: No further comments.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Commissioner Blair, I think is left. I’ll just say a couple of things very quickly. First of all and I think this is echoed by our staff’s recommendations here, I wouldn’t worry too much about architectural congruence with existing security huts. I would
worry much more about how this looks in the context of the Treasury Building and the new ballroom and the other buildings that this is going to be in the middle of.
Overall, this is a really complicated problem. I mean I take my hat off to you all for finding what I think is an elegant solution to a big part of that problem, which is entrance from the 15th Street side. I think undergrounding it is great. I was worried that if this actually went under the Sherman statue, the whole thing could collapse which would be very bad for any people queuing, but it appears that you’re skirting around it, which is positive.
Overall, I think it’s just a very well designed solution to the problem and I look forward to seeing it when it comes back around. Thank you, as always, to the men and women of the Secret Service for what they do and thank you to you, Lee, for a detailed presentation on a complicated and exciting new project.
With that, we have a motion and a
second on the floor. Madam Secretary, would you like to confirm the motion and second and then proceed to a vote by roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Commissioner Stidham and seconded by Commissioner Dixon. Commissioner Cozart?
COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Salesse? COMMISSIONER SALESSE: 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? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Tunstall-
Williams? COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash?
COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion carries and, Mr. Chairman, if we could pause momentarily to refresh the recording feed and then we can get to the last two items.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Like a water stop towards the end of a marathon, so.
(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 4:26 p.m. and resumed at
4:27 p.m.) MS. HOTTEL-COX: Live streaming has resumed. 8732 SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 3001 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC – NATIONAL ZOOLOGICAL
PARK CONSTRUCT NEW ARABIAN LEOPARD HABITAT CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Next on the agenda is
to approve preliminary site and building plans for the National Zoological Park Construct New Arabian Leopard Habitat, which we are extremely excited about. As we heard last time this came before us, we have with us Jamie Herr. Jamie, would you like to proceed?
MS. HERR: I would, thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and Members of the Commission. The Smithsonian Institution has submitted preliminary site and building plans to construct an Arabian Leopard Habitat at the National Zoological Park in Northwest Washington, D.C. for Commission approval. The Commission previously provided comments on the concept plan at the January Commission meeting.
As a reminder for the preliminary review stage, the Commission should be focused on topics such as the project’s consistency with the Federal Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, the architectural and landscape strategy, the appropriateness of the site for the given context and how the project will affect views
and view sheds. Since the Commission just reviewed the project in January, I will focus on the key updates.
The project site is approximately 3/4 of an acre and is prominently located at a north bend in the Olmsted Walk situated between the Panda Habitat and the Elephant House Exhibit. It is close to the Connecticut Avenue entrance and across from the bus group entry, a restroom facility and the Panda Plaza Concessions area. All of which are heavily used by visitors.
Two existing exhibits previously occupied the site. The former Bison Habitat which closed in 2024 and the Zoo in Your Backyard Exhibit, which featured plants native to the Washington, D.C. area. A quick reminder that the goals of the project include creating a large habitat designed with the flexibility to accommodate future species and with opportunities for the cats to display their natural climbing behaviors, a new animal care facility with day room, dens and staff support
space, accessible public viewing areas including a VIP viewing area designed within the context of the existing site and will reuse the bison structures if possible.
In addition, the habitat needs to be designed with the influence of the arid, rocky mountains of the Arabian Peninsula, while taking into consideration, the historic environment of the National Zoological Park, Historic District and Olmsted Walk.
The applicant has updated the design since the concept review and staff recommends the Commission support the increased natural space for the animals with unique viewing experiences for visitors in the refined oasis Saudi hybrid habitat design. The applicant provided updated details about the habitat with visitor experiences, screen enclosure details, a new landscape plan, an updated animal care building and signage, shade and fencing details.
The applicant has spent extensive time coordinating with zoo horticultural experts to
create a landscape plan that meets both the existing context of the zoo, the historic Olmsted Walk Planting Guidance and other planting themes, but that also creates a habitat that will be welcoming and familiar to the animals. The applicant has received comments about the planting plan, specifically that there are not enough pollinators, including common milkweed. There are too many non-native species and there is bamboo included, which is considered invasive.
The applicant has responded that each plant was selected with thought and purpose given the needs of the animals and the context within the zoo. Staff concurs with the applicant’s response and notes that the NCPC Pollinator Best Practices Resource Guide encourages applicants to include pollinators where appropriate and recognizes that there are other plant species that may be more appropriate to meet a project’s goals and objectives. As such, staff recommends the Commission support
the updated landscape plan that blends plant species native to the Arabian Peninsula with the landscape palette of the Historic Olmsted Walk.
This is the updated view of the habitat with the care building in the foreground and the screened enclosure behind. Staff recommends the Commission support the reduced slope of the lifted roof line over the day room of the animal care building, which maintains the pitched roof typologies elsewhere in the park and softens the upturned roof line. The additional natural stone and a green-colored roof on the animal care building that better coordinate with the existing architecture and simplify the visual expression of the materials.
This view shows the west entry into the habitat and the proposed arched mesh. The applicant studied a variety of options and is proposing a charcoal gray enclosure structure with black mesh. Staff recommends the Commission support the applicant’s preferred charcoal gray arch enclosure supports and black
mesh which is less visually intrusive than other enclosure color combinations considered. Staff recommends the applicant continue to refine the designs of the proposed shade structures, screen enclosure, planting plan and tree replacement plan as they work towards the final design.
The applicant has been responsive to the Commission’s previous comments and staff recommends the Commission approves the preliminary site and building plans the Smithsonian Institution’s Construct Arabian Leopard Habitat at the National Zoological Park in Northwest Washington, D.C.
The other recommendations have been noted in the presentation, but they are included here for your reference.
This concludes my presentation. The applicant and the design team are here to answer any questions the Commission may have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Jamie. Do any commissioners have any questions for Jamie
at this time? Yes, ma’am.
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: What is the material of the day room, that roof? The green or blue, it looks very discordant and it may just be the rendering. It’s very descriptive.
MS. HERR: It probably is the rendering. The application has it as like a faux slate, it actually matches color-wise some of the historic slate roofs across the Olmsted Walk.
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Okay, so it’s a rendering issue?
MS. HERR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Interesting. Do we have any other questions for Jamie at this time? Hearing none, I believe we have Mr. Bernard Berne, who would like to provide some testimony on this project. Is he with us? Mr. Berne, can you hear us?
MR. BERNE: Yes, can you hear me?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We can hear you, sir.
MR. BERNE: Thank you. This project does not adequately conform to the recommendation in the NCPC’s Pollinators Best Practices Guide.
In response to my comments, Michael Beglinger, the Director of Facility Operations for the National Zoo, told Jamie Herr in writing that, “Historic aesthetic traditions at the zoo are responsible for this non-conformance.” The NCPC Guide states that it is acceptable to use some non-native plants in design landscapes as long as they are not considered invasive; however, this project will add bamboo to the zoo’s population of non-native plants. In accordance with one such, “The historical aesthetic tradition.”
Several bamboo species are on the invasive plant list of the National Park Service, Arlington County and the City of Alexandria among many others. One, within the
same genus that this project will install, has been reported outside of cultivation in nearly 400 U.S. cities and counties including 51 in Fairfax County and 21 locations in Washington,
D.C. Some such locations of this and other species are Rocky Creek National Park, right next to the zoo.
As the plant spreads by seed, the zoo’s bamboo population has supported its local invasiveness for a long time. That’s tradition? The Identity Guide states that Common Milkweed is -- is clearly an important species that is critical to the survival of the Monarch butterflies. The Guide further states that Common Milkweed should be planted on federal landscapes to the fullest extent possible and as appropriate for site conditions. However, Mr. Beglinger stated that the zoo nutrition experts do not permit several pollinator friendly plants I named to be acceptable plantings in and around the zoo exhibits.
These plantings were Common Milkweed,
Arrowwood Viburnum, Black Cherry and Buttonbush. Mr. Beglinger claimed that these plants have primary plant offenses or contain toxins that could harm many zoo animals. Mr. Beglinger’s claim makes no sense and is absurd. The planned project will not add any plants to the zoo animals’ enclosures, but will only install plants near pathways outside of those enclosures.
The zoo animals would not be able to eat or touch the plants. Zookeepers remove unwanted plants from the animals’ enclosures. Further, Arrowwood Vibrunum has no known toxicity or harmful primary plant offense. Please therefore reject Mr. Beglinger’s claims. Please vote to ask the zoo to follow the NCPC Guide’s recommendations and above all, to start planting Common Milkweed and to stop planting bamboo. This is really helping to destroy Rock Creek National Park, that’s a federal facility. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Berne.
Are there any questions for our witness today? Hearing none, thank you, sir. Thank you for joining us as always and, as I’ve told you before, I truly do admire your dedication to the NCPC’s Pollinators policy and to the issues that clearly motivate you and in which you’re clearly expert. We always appreciate you joining us. That concludes the public testimony on this issue for today.
With that, is there a motion to approve preliminary site and building plans for the National Zoological Park Construct New Arabian Leopard Habitat?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: So moved.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER ARGO: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. I’ll now open it up to the Commission for discussion and I will start the deliberations with Commissioner Argo.
COMMISSIONER ARGO: I think this is a
great plan. I’d like to see those leopards in an appropriate habitat. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: I have nothing further on top of those remarks. A lot of people are very excited about the exhibit.
COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Commissioner Tunstall-Williams?
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Well, you may guess by my question, for the most part I think it’s a great project, but I would like to see a little bit more about the materiality of the day care building and the context that it’s relating to. I spend a fair amount of time in the zoo because it’s not -- not because I live there, but because I live close and it’s striking me as kind of out of context. So, I’m just curious to see how it fits, but great project. I think it’s exciting to have something new come.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I associate myself with Commissioner Argo’s comment.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cash?
COMMISSIONER CASH: Well, just because I had so much time on my hands, when I didn’t have to deal with all the White House stuff, I did kind of read through this EDR pretty closely just because it’s interesting. I will note I saw steel mesh 316, I’m like where else have I seen that before and actually it’s very similar material to what the Eisenhower Tapestry is made out of, which led me down a whole rabbit or a leopard hole, whatever you want to call it about patina and all that stuff.
Actually, one of the things that I do kind of like -- it seems like it’s not completely settled, but the color of it right now, is proposed to be a black mesh or like a charcoal mesh or very dark because even though
it sounds counterintuitive, when it’s very dark, it actually makes it easier to through; if you remember back from when we were talking about the White House or a chicken coop or something like that. But the other side of that is pollen this time of year, bird droppings in a park, all that stuff unless it’s kind of religiously cleaned, you’re going to have a big black dome that you can normally see through, only if it’s kept clean.
So, just in looking at the materiality and if you’re going to decide to oxidize and turn it back or keep it a natural, I would hope that stuff stays in mind because I want this to be a good experience for people and not to -because we don’t have something like this I think in the zoo, like this kind of enclosure. So, just making sure that it stays how it is supposed to and it’s well maintained in the future. That was my only comment that I thought of bringing it right back around to our other mesh structures we’ve looked at. So,
thanks.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Nothing further. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cozart had to step away.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Oh, sorry. Commissioner Salesse?
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: I support the staff recommendation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner and Commissioner Stidham?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: I associate myself with comments already made. I sort of wondered if it was a rendering issue too because the paving looked really weird too, so understanding a bit more about the materiality and how it sort of fits would be great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you,
Commissioner. Speaking for myself, I remain extraordinarily excited about the Leopard Habitat. I am excited to see the leopards in the habitat most of all. I think we’ve seen real progress from when this first came before the Commission, which is always gratifying and good to see. I look forward to seeing how it continues to evolve and develop. I think some of the comments we’ve had from commissioners today are quite insightful and I think that our staff’s overall comments and recommendations have been great and I hope that they are listened to. The National Zoo is actually one of my favorite places in Washington, D.C. and as previous commissioners have said, this may be the most exciting new exhibit to get there in a very long time.
I think the location is particularly prominent if you think of the walking plan through the zoo and I hope that we are able to get to a place where we have a truly beautiful
exhibit that will highlight these truly beautiful animals here in our nation’s capital. Thank you, as always, to Jamie, to our entire staff and team for their customary outstanding work.
With that, if there are no further questions or comments, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and second and take the vote by roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Argo. Commissioner Salesse?
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Committee 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?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes.
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Tunstall-
Williams? COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion carries. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you.
8753 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, MAGAZINE ROAD, SW, WASHINGTON, DC NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY P-250 BIOMOLECULAR SCIENCE AND SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY
LABORATORY
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: With that motion having carried, we now move on to Agenda Item 9F which is a request to approve comments on concept plans for the Naval Research Laboratory P-250 Biomolecular Science and Synthetic Biology
Laboratory.
We have Laura Shipman, who will be presenting again today. Thank you for being with us again, Laura, and you may proceed when ready.
MS. SHIPMAN: Great.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Fire when ready as our friends in the Navy might say.
MS. SHIPMAN: The Department of the Navy has submitted concept plans for a new Biomolecular Science and Synthetic Biology Laboratory on the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.
As a reminder, at the concept review stage, the Commission is focused on topics such as general consistency with NCPC policies, appropriateness of the project for the site and identification of any complex issues. The proposed P-250 lab building will be constructed on an existing parking lot located on the western side of the NRL along the Potomac River.
The applicant evaluated five sites for
the project and selected Alternative B circled in green because it provides the necessary space for the project and has appropriate standoff distances from the perimeter fence line.
The selected development site aligns with guidance in the 2014 NRL Installation Master Plan approved by the Commission, which encourages infill development on surface parking when feasible. The project site is also included in the plan as a parcel with potential for future development to meet mission requirements.
The applicant notes that the project will not adversely impact the NRL parking ratio. Existing employees will be relocated resulting in no change in the overall number of personnel as well as net loss of parking spaces on the installation.
Zooming in, the project site includes two small storage buildings, 205 and 206, which will be relocated south as part of the project. The site is also adjacent to an open space to
the east that will be preserved with two small historic structures, labeled A20 and A21. The Master Plan recommends creating a complete network of walkways that connect people to facilities and outdoor spaces. As such, staff recommends that the site design incorporate improved pedestrian pathways and sidewalks to enhance connectivity between the facility, the adjacent open space area to the east and the river front.
The NRL is one of many significant shoreline properties along the Potomac River noted in the Comprehensive Planned Federal Environment Element where efforts to reduce the amount of storm water runoff are critical to protect the region’s waterways and water resources. This is the proposed site and landscape plan which shows the building to the east of the site with a reconfigured parking area at its front on Smith Street which runs along the river.
The applicant states that the project
will meet unified facilities criteria and District storm water management requirements. However, the proposed reconfigured parking lot with impervious surfaces is not a preferred use adjacent to a major regional waterway. To mitigate this placement, staff recommends the applicant consider permeable paving in the parking lot that fronts on the Potomac River along with additional trees and vegetative screening in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy FE-C5.
Additionally, the applicant is currently analyzing the flooding risk to calculate the proper elevation above grade for the building. Staff recommends the Commission request further information in the next submission on the proposed flooding resilience strategies that will be incorporated into the site and building design.
Here are perspectives of the proposed building which will be four floors and approximately 89,00 square feet with a
laboratory, associated support and office areas as well as an equipment penthouse. Each story will be 18 feet with a total building height of approximately 92 feet. Exterior materials will be primarily white and light gray metal panels, dark gray pre-cast concrete and curtain wall and storefront window systems.
The varied designs of the facade shown in the submission respond to solar orientation and interior functions. However, there is a lack of cohesion in the building design overall. While the laboratory is immediately surrounded by disparate uses and architectural styles, the NRL is generally characterized by predominantly low and mid rise buildings with functional design and minimal ornamentation as shown in this slide. As the project is developed, staff recommends the applicant consider exploring a more simplified and cohesive building design compatible with and reflective of the architecture throughout the campus, particularly the nearby historic laboratory structures
surrounding the central mall.
Staff also recommends the Commission requests renderings including surrounding buildings to illustrate the massing and height of the proposed development in context. The submission indicates that 36 trees will be removed for the proposed development and 133 will be replaced. In accordance with comprehensive plan policies, including 34 on the project site and the remaining 99 across the campus. Staff recommends the Commission request the general locations of off site tree replacement to be provided with the next submission.
The applicant has indicated that plantings across the project site will include a range of native species in accordance with the NCPC’s Pollinators Best Practices Resource Guide where feasible. In particular, areas outside of required security stand off set backs are being added to the landscape scope as pollinator gardens to improve habitat adjacent to the shore
of the Potomac.
With that, staff recommends the Commission approve the comments on the P-250 Lab concept plans highlighted throughout my presentation and listed on the following slides. That concludes my presentation.
Representatives from the Department of the Navy and the design team are also available to respond to any questions from the Commission. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you. Do any commissioners have any questions for Laura or, I guess, for members of the Navy design team while we’re here? Yes, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: The functions of this building, do they exist -- is this a new function coming to the campus or does it exist - or does it exist outside the campus? I’m not saying this very well. Obviously, it doesn’t currently exist on the campus. Where does it exist today or is this a new feature?
MS. WISE: Currently, this research is
being done on the campus, but in old buildings that are not really able to maintain some of the HVAC cooling, humidity and other utility constraints that are required for the research. We can’t also bring in some new equipment due to the existing facility’s height limitations, existing columns because the current facility was retrofitted as a laboratory. This would enable a purpose built laboratory for the research that we’re currently doing and the research that is anticipated to be needed to be field.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Great, that is great to know. Just a couple more questions. This is behind the levee, right, but you saw flooding issues? Do you anticipate more flooding issues?
MS. WISE: We have not had flooding issues in this area, but it is within the 500 year flood plain. Because of DoW requirements we have to look at the DoD sea level risk and the FEMA flood plain and determine which one is
more adverse and then plan for that. So, we’re in the middle of that analysis.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Is the levee a project that the campus was previously looking at still underway or being considered?
MS. WISE: There is a levee project at the north installation which is Joint Base Anacostia Bolling, which is a separate installation than ours. We currently don’t have a levee project. We have an existing flood wall that was recently repaired to the same elevation that it already existed at.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Okay, that’s helpful. One last question, the design of this building is so very different than the rest of the structures that currently exist on the campus. Can you sort of walk me through the intent of such a modern structure amongst these facilities?
MS. WISE: I am going to have to rely on our design team and the AE who should be on the line are who are able to answer those
questions.
MR. MILCHECK: Hi, my name is Daniel Milcheck, I’m the architect with the design team. The intent with the way the building looks, the facades, they are wanting to bring in an attract new folks, so they want to bring in
-and they want the building to look more -- and kind of transition to a new era into something that’s more contemporary. Not necessarily leaving things in the past, still pulling from materials and stuff that are nearby and on base, but wanting to kind of take that next jump into kind of a new era for the base and new facilities.
I think this is going to be one of the new construction in the last 15 or 20 years, so they’re wanting to revamp that and be able to bring in new folks and be able to retain new folks. The way we have it positioned and set up is based on some solar orientation. We have the large panes of glass on the north side there, so you get that nice natural light and that’s where
we have a lot of the office spaces.
The west side of the facility also has a lot of glass and that gives nice panoramic views of the river and then the south and kind of the east sides of the facility are where the majority of lab functions are that don’t necessarily warrant a lot of glazing. That’s how we set it up. Material wise, going for metal panels, precast panels, so Building 28 to the north of us is precast, A59 to the south of us is a large metal building, so pulling that metal panel materials from the adjacent facilities.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Mr. Vice Chairman?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: The biologist in me likes it. It looks like a nice place to do research, but I do want to touch on those comments about the design. I noticed in the comments from the Commission of Fine Arts that they also talked about the Executive Order making federal architecture beautiful again.
The comments said that the design is inappropriate for this important research institution. I wanted to get your reactions to that and see what kind of thinking you’ve done since these comments. I know they were recently submitted, but to what extent have they prompted you to go back and take a look at the design?
MR. BROWN: Thank you, Chairman, I’ll take that question. Yes, we are actively having conversations internally about the comments we received from the CFA and the design of the building. We’re not prepared to discuss about the way we’re moving forward following those comments today because we’re still having those conversations internally, but we are considering them and we’re trying to determine the best path forward.
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: So, just for process, do we see if there is a redesign or even if there is not a redesign it comes back one more time before? Okay.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yeah, this is
concept, so presumably we’d see prelim and then final. So, we have runway. That was my concern too. I was just going to say, similar question, we’ve got an EO that requires classical architecture where possible. I don’t think we’ve applied directly to the military yet, but at least this Commission has not considered that in the military context before, but I also that CFA had dinged you all on that. If there’s a way that we can get this design more in conformity with current federal building standards and the preferred architecture nomenclature, I think that would be helpful.
MR. BROWN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Are there any other questions for the project team or our team?
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: I have a question and, Laura, you may have mentioned it and I missed it. Is the facility historic? Has it been evaluated? I saw there was something about NHTF, I just didn’t know what the -
MS. SHIPMAN: Right, so while NCPC does not have a Section 106 responsibility, the project will go through a 106 process and I think Richard can add more information on how that process is progressing.
MR.BROWN: Yes, we are preparing to submit to the DC SHPO currently.
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Okay, has it been determined eligible or listed or you’re doing that process right now?
MR. BROWN: Sorry, just to confirm, has what been?
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Has the facility, the whole research laboratory, is it a Historic District?
MR. BROWN: Yeah, so we have our cultural resources program manager on the line, I’m going to have to defer to her on that. Julia, are you there and can you field that question? She might not -
MALE PARTICIPANT: Richard, I don’t see Julia on the line.
MR. BROWN: Oh, okay. Jen, do you have any insight into this?
MS. WISE: The laboratory as a whole is eligible from the National Register of Historic Places, I believe it’s called the Bellevue Annex Naval Research Laboratory District.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Okay, thank you.
MS. WISE: So, they’ll pull up as a whole.
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Okay, great. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Awesome, are there any other questions for the project team?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chair?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Given that this is about 10 blocks from my house, I want to know what do you do over there. Can you answer that here or this appropriate? I mean I Googled it, this is serious stuff.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Actually, I’m curious, what’s the highest biosafety level you
guys are planning to contain here if that’s not classified and that’s something you can say in an open setting?
MS. WISE: It’s not classified, but I’m not sure, but I know we’re not allowed, the whole lab, we’re not allowed to work with, I think, anything above 2.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay.
MS. WISE: I’m not sure which direction it goes, but not serious stuff.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: So, no gain of function research on corona -- I’m kidding.
MS. WISE: No, absolutely not. We do have a description of the type of biomolecular we do on our website, which is publicly releasable.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Awesome.
MS. WISE: I could read that for you if you’d like.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Maybe you should share it with me off record. I don’t want to hold the staff up over that.
MS. WISE: Sure. Let me get to the -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I just Googled it and read it. It’s amazing. This is like making things from bio cells and stuff.
MS. WISE: This group studies complex biomolecular systems to understand how biology solves difficult structural, functional and sensing problems. Technological areas currently being studied include molecular and micro structure design, molecular biology, imaging of cells using nano particles, sensor design and prototype development for bio surveillance or underwater chemical detection and energy harvesting.
They conduct cross disciplinary research in the areas of immunology, biochemistry, systems biology, electrochemistry, synthetic chemistry, microbiology, micro lithography, photochemistry, biophysics, spectroscopy, advanced diagnostics, organic synthesis and electro-optical engineering.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you for that -
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Just curious.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thorough review.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: I want you to note that this is all happening in Anacostia River East.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I’m very happy you all are on our side. Any other questions for the project team or for our team?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: I think we could just say if we could get an answer on the BSL level if the team wants to get back to us on that, I think that would be useful to know. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Of course, Commissioner. With that, is there a motion to approve comments on concept plans for the Naval Research Laboratory P-250 Biomolecular Science and Synthetic Biology Laboratory?
COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: With that motion on
the floor, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Second.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Second. I’ll now open it up to the Commission for discussion and we will start with Commissioner Dixon.
COMMISSIONER DIXON: No further comments.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Commissioner Cash?
COMMISSIONER CASH: All that’s going through my mind was creating a non-nutritive cereal varnish or something like that from National Lampoon’s Vacation.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: That’s the important research that’s going on in our time over there.
COMMISSIONER CASH: But actually, I will say I mean I know that there’s a difference of opinion on like the classical architecture versus not classical architecture. Regardless of that, I will say that this is a building that strikes me as the first federal building that I’ve seen that looks more like a DCDGS Building
than I’m used to. A whole side of windows and a whole side of randomly placed, staggered windows, it’s kind of jarring from even a perspective we saw a few years back here, so I’m interested in that evolution and would be interested in seeing it when it comes back, just because I think on an installation like this, it’s so jarring to the other side not to make an opinion on the underlying Executive Order, but it’s a big change from what we’ve got going on there and most other federal places. I’ll be interested to see how the design evolves.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Henderson?
COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Nothing further. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cozart left us. Commissioner Salesse?
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Love the Navy.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Anchors away. Commissioner Stidham?
COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: I think it’s a great project. Coming from a science background myself, I know being fitted into a building that doesn’t fit those needs is very impossible, so the need is clear. I think the architecture needs to catch up. You’re on a -- I must be getting tired, you are on a historic campus and you really need to be able to blend this building with those character defining features of the others. Finding a balance between the historic and the new in a way that accentuates the historic, but shows that this is a new structure, an inviting structure that meets the needs of the facility are going to be extremely important. We’ll look for that when you come back.
I think that a lot of times, the landscaping plan is an afterthought and I think in this case it is an afterthought. I think you need to think a little bit more about the landscaping of this structure. That campus needs a lot of love on the ground. Spaces with
shade. Spaces that consider the setting of the building and the appropriateness of the space. It is a parking lot though, but there are a lot of ways that you can really be considerate of the landscaping for the setting of the building beyond the domain. I’ll look for those two pieces when you come back.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Argo?
COMMISSIONER ARGO: No additional comments. I’ll associate myself with Commissioner Stidham’s comments as well, especially with regard to opportunities to green it up. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach?
VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: I’d say ditto and look forward to the next round of review.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Commissioner Tunstall-Williams?
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Yes, I
align myself with Commissioner Stidham’s comments. I really was struck particularly the image where we saw the whole campus. There’s quite a context there and it’s very consistent and this -- all of it’s horizontal and this building is very vertical. I encourage you to look at that, that may come out as you move into your Section 106 process, but right now, it feels a little bit incongruous, some of that is probably driven by the height requirements of the labs. The architectural expression, I think, should be more consistent with the Historic District, which will be a little bit at odds with the Executive Order, which is something that we’ve struggled with at GSA because if you’re trying to build within the context of what is what looks like 1940s campus that sort of neo-classical design doesn’t really fit there. We’re kind of trying to thread that needle, but I think there’s a lot of room.
The other thought that I had is this is very prominent site on the river front and so
thinking about that to putting a parking lot there seemed an interesting move, although with the flood plain, it made sense. Going to Commissioner Stidham’s comments about how we green it up and think about the landscape, I think that that is worthwhile.
Lastly, selfishly, I don’t know this facility at all other than from the other side of the river. It might be really helpful for a commission to take a tour of the campus.
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Just to better understand as the design evolves. That’s it.
CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Speaking for myself, first of all, as always, thank you to our team for their detailed review of the plans that have been submitted. Thank you to the project team for the hard work they’ve obviously done here. I’m glad we’re still at the concept stage here. I think if this were in for prelim, I’d probably
vote no.
I think the architecture is congruent with nothing. It’s not congruent with the base around it. It’s not congruent with the design language. We’re trying to get the federal government to be working with. I understand the need to have bright shiny buildings to attract bright shiny young people, but this thing is just -- it just looks totally out of place given what we’re dealing with here.
If there’s a programmatic need for that, then I think that’s a very different conversation and there are obviously things that are going to be going on here that we don’t need to know about, but if there’s a programmatic need for this particular architecture, I’d be very interested to know that. That would obviously color and shape our discussions, but the same way the Commission on Fine Arts found this building objectionable, I don’t think we’re there yet and I hope that by the time it comes back in for prelim, we get it to a better place.
All that having been said, at this early stage in our review, I think our staff’s comments are well done, well constructed. I certainly support them so I will be voting to move this project along, but I hope that by the next time this thing comes back that we’re in a better place with it.
With that, are there any further comments or questions? Hearing none, can the Secretary please confirm the motion and second and then take the vote by roll call?
MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes, the motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Salesse. Commissioner Salesse?
COMMISSIONER SALESSE: 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? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Tunstall-
Williams? COMMISSIONER TUNSTALL-WILLIAMS: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner
Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: The motion carries. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay, this concludes
our open session agenda for the day. Our next regular Commission meeting will be on Thursday, May 9th at 1:00. To those of you on the Commission that have made it all the way through today, I very much appreciate you being here. Those of our colleagues that departed early, I know who you are and we will see you soon, but really, thank you all for your close attention
to the many important projects we had before us
today. With that, we’ll see you next month. COMMISSIONER DIXON: Chair? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes, sir? COMMISSIONER DIXON: May 7th? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I believe that’s
correct. May 7th. Oh, did I miss that? I
apologize. COMMISSIONER DIXON: Maybe not. CHAIRMAN SCHARF: May 7th, Thursday,
May 7th at 1:00 p.m. Be there or be square. Have a great evening. To those of you who are currently celebrating Passover, have a very happy Passover. To those of you celebrating Holy Week, have a blessed Good Friday and a very happy Easter. We will see you all in a month. Thank you.
This meeting is adjourned. (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 5:06 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.
James Cordes