NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

+ + + + +

COMMISSION MEETING

+ + + + +

OPEN SESSION

+ + + + +

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 2026

The meeting convened via Video/Teleconference, at 1:00 p.m. EST, William Scharf, Chair, presiding.

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

WILLIAM SCHARF, Chair, Presidential Appointee (At-Large) STUART LEVENBACH, Vice Chair, Mayoral Appointee LINDA ARGO, Mayoral Appointee

the District of Columbia MICHAEL BLAIR, Presidential Appointee ARRINGTON DIXON, Mayoral Appointee PAUL INGRASSIA, Government Service Administration 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 STEPHEN BRUCH, Director, Facilities Services Directorate JESSICA BOWRON, Director

U.S. National Park Service WILLIAM HENDERSON, U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

ELLIE McGOWAN, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Accountability

NCPC STAFF PRESENT:

MARCEL C. ACOSTA, Executive Director DIANNE SULLIVAN, Planning Division Director

CONTENTS

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC – Eisenhower Executive Office Building Exterior Beautification Project

United States Department of Defense, 53 Washington Headquarters Services, 104 Boundary Channel Drive, Arlington, Virginia – Pentagon Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility

Adjourn

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

1:01 p.m.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Good afternoon and welcome to the National Capital Planning Commission's May 7, 2026 open session. First, Madam Secretary, could you please take the roll call?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. Commissioner

Cozart? MS. COZART: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch? MR. BRUCH: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bowron? MS. BOWRON: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? MS. ARGO: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? MR. LEVENBACH: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia?

MR. INGRASSIA: Here.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson?

MR. HENDERSON: Present.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner McGowan?

MS. MCGOWAN: Here.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Marcel Acosta, Executive Director, and Dianne Sullivan, current Planning Division Director, are also in the meeting. And with those present, Mr. Chairman, we do have a quorum to proceed.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Noting the presence of a quorum, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Today's meeting is livestreamed and will be available, as is our custom, in a few days on the NCPC's website. And if there's no objection to the agenda as posted, the agenda is adopted as the order of business. And let's all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

(Pledge)

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Agenda item 2 is the Report of the Chairman. First, I'd like to welcome

two new commissioners today. Stephen, I'll butcher the pronunciation of your name, sir, Bruch. Stephen Bruch joins us from the Department of War. He's our new NCPC representative from the Department, and he serves as the Director of the Facilities Services Directorate in the Washington Headquarters Service.

And second, Jessica Bowron. Did I pronounce your name right, ma'am? I'm sorry. The Acting Director of the National Park Service is sitting today as the NCPC representative from the Department of the Interior. To both of you, welcome.

Mr. Bruch was giving us a fascinating history of the monarch butterfly and its range across North America before we came today, which gives him, I think, great insight into the pollinator's policy of the NCPC, which is always a hot subject of discussion. But really, it's been an incredible honor getting to serve on this commission, and it's great to have both of you with us today. I'm sure you will similarly enjoy

the time you spend here.

Second, I want to share some of the highlights of the last month of public engagement on Pennsylvania Avenue design concepts. That's something that we've reviewed at a number of previous meetings, including our April meeting. We hosted two well-attended public meetings with attendees representing a handful of states across the nation. We also received more than 200 public comments representing feedback from people all walks of life who frequent or visit Pennsylvania Avenue.

We'd like to thank the National Building Museum for hosting the Pennsylvania Avenue display in their City Action Hall, and staff will compile a summary of public responses which will be posted on the project website in the coming weeks. This feedback obviously will be helpful to this commission as we continue dealing with projects relating to Pennsylvania Avenue and the next iteration of the design concept for it, which I think we're expecting to hear in the fall.

Other than that, I don't have too much

to say or to add. We have a relatively short agenda today, which is, I'll say, quite welcome given how lengthy our last couple meetings have been, but an important agenda. So we'll proceed with that. Agenda item 3 is the Report of our Executive Director, Marcel Acosta. Marcel?

MR. ACOSTA: Thank you, Chair Scharf, and good afternoon. And welcome to our new commissioners. And on behalf of the staff, we're here to help you out. And if you have any questions, let us know.

I'm pleased to share that the Commission's Monumental Course Streetscape Guide and Construction Manual has received an award from the American Society of Landscape Architects Potomac Chapter. NCPC led an 11-member interagency working group to prepare the guide, which is used as a resource for agencies, property owners, and design and construction professionals to coordinate streetscape improvements. This effort will help create a more cohesive and

welcoming public realm in the monumental course that supports the President's Safe and Beautiful Executive Order.

Tonight, NCPC's Elizabeth Miller and Ben Turpin will receive the award on behalf of the interagency working group. I would also like to thank our agency partners for their dedication to this effort. Several of them are represented on this commission, the National Park Service, the General Services Administration, the District's Office of Planning. So thank you all, and congratulations to all involved. You have my written report in your packets, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Marcel. Do any commissioners have questions for our Executive Director? I will just note that one of the most impressive things to me when I first joined this commission was seeing the massive array of awards that this commission has received over the years on display in various parts of our headquarters here, and it's good to hear that we're continuing

to rack up more awards. So congratulations to the team and really to all involved, and obviously to you as well, Marcel, for your fearless leadership as we proceed with our mission here.

Agenda item 4 is our Legislative Update. Meghan, would you like to proceed with that?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. I have three legislative items to report on this month. The first is House Bill 2196, the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Extension Act, which would extend the National Emergency Medical Services Memorial Foundation's authorization for another seven years. This bill passed the House on March 17th and is now in the Senate for its consideration.

The second item is the Hershel Woody Williams National Medal of Honor Monument Location Act, which requires that the National Medal of Honor Monument be located within the Reserve. The House version of the bill passed in January of 2025, and an amended Senate version has passed. It passed on March 25th, and that amended version

is back in the House for reconciliation.

Finally, I wanted to report on House Bill 5103, Make the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Act of 2025. This bill would establish a commission to advise on certain criminal and immigration matters in the District of Columbia. And relevant to NCPC's work, it would require the Department of the Interior to establish a program focused on maintaining cleanliness in commonly visited areas in DC, including monuments, parks, and roads.

The bill codifies a similar commission established by the President in March of 2025 as part of the Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Executive Order, and NCPC has been actively engaged with the beautification work of the task force since it was established.

The bill passed the House on March 26th and is now in the Senate for consideration. That concludes my legislative report, but I'm happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Meghan. Do

any commissioners have questions or comments? Vice Chairman Levenbach?

MR. LEVENBACH: Yeah, I just have one. I think it'd be helpful also to just update on the DC beautification request and the President's budget and how that works its way through appropriations. So if you could just track that. I think that has a lot of relevance to the Commission.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Duly noted. Any other questions or comments before we proceed to the consent calendar? Hearing and seeing none, agenda item 5 is the Consent Calendar. We have three items on this month's consent calendar. The first is an application from GSA for approval of the revised master plan Fourth Amendment for the Southeast Federal Center. The second is an application from the DC Office of Budget and Performance Management for approval of comments to the Mayor for the District of Columbia Capital Improvements Plan for fiscal years 2027 to 2032.

And the final consent calendar item is

an application from the Department of Homeland Security for approval of final site and building plans for the James J. Rowley Training Center Defense Training Facility. Are there any questions or comments on any of these three consent calendar items from commissioners? Hearing and seeing none, is there a motion to approve the consent calendar as posted?

MS. ARGO: I'll make a motion to approve. Hello?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: A motion to -- oh, was Commissioner Argo trying to motion?

MS. ARGO: Yes, she was.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Oh. We're having a little trouble hearing you, ma'am. There's something weird with the audio. I apologize.

MS. ARGO: All right. Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. We can. So we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second?

MS. BOWRON: I second.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you,

Commissioner. Is there any discussion on the item before we proceed to a vote? Hearing none, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and the second and take the vote by roll call?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Commissioner Bruch and seconded by Commissioner Bowron. Commissioner Cozart?

MS. COZART: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch? MR. BRUCH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bowron? MS. BOWRON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? MS. ARGO: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? MR. LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? MR. BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia?

MR. INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? MR. DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? MR. CASH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson? MR. HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner McGowan? MS. MCGOWAN: Yes.

Secretary. And I would note for the record that it appears since we began, we've been joined by Commissioner Cash here in person. Commissioner Dixon, we can see you, sir. Welcome to the meeting. Always good to have you here. And I think I heard Commissioner Blair's voice as well. So I think we have a full contingent today, which is always a great thing.

With that, the motion has carried, and we have two items on our open session agenda for

today. The first is agenda item 6A, which is a request to approve comments on concept plans for the Eisenhower Executive Office Building exterior beautification project. And Mike Weil from our team is here to present on that today.

MR. WEIL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and members of the Commission. Executive Office of the President, Office of Administration is presenting several -- excuse me, one second. Proposes to make several changes to the exterior facade of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is located in Northwest Washington, DC. on the west side of the White House.

As a concept review submission, the Commission provides comments on the project and requests additional information that will inform the Commission's action at its future preliminary and final review stages. Here is a close-up of the White House grounds in the center with the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, or EEOB,

located west of the White House's west wing. This map shows the White House in vicinity, which includes Lafayette Square, the U.S. Treasury Building, the Ellipse, and Sherman Park. And Sherman Park also happens to be the site of the future White House Visitor Screening Facility.

In addition to being listed as a National Historic Landmark and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the Eisenhower Executive Office Building is also part of the Lafayette Square National Historic Landmark District, which encompasses Lafayette Square, the Treasury Building, Renwick Gallery, and multiple other nearby historic buildings.

And this district is significant for its role as the first neighborhood and front yard of the White House, embodying presidential history, 19th-century residential architecture, and the American preservation movement.

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building is a relatively large, 662,000-square-foot, six-level, palatial-looking structure that currently

houses a number of agencies from the Executive Office of the President, including the Office of the Vice President, the White House Office, Office of Management and Budget, and the National Security Council.

Designed in the French Second Empire style, the building's construction started under the Grant Administration and was constructed over 17 years, from 1871 to 1888. The building was designed by Alfred B. Mullett to house the Departments of State, War, and Navy as one of the first federal office buildings.

The building has a number of distinctive features, including its purple-gray granite walls, mansard roofs, dormers, Doric columns, tiers of porticos, and rusticated sub-basement and basement walls. And the National Register nomination describes the building as a paradigm of post-Civil War architecture, and one of the three grandest structures in the United States for its style.

The EEOB has seen a number of significant historic events, some of which are listed here.

The building was originally named the State, War, and Navy Building, and then became known as the Old Executive Office Building, until 1999, when the building was officially renamed the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

From 2004 to 2012, GSA refurbished parts of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, bolstering its structural integrity, replacing windows, and improving its electrical, ventilation, and telecommunication systems. And the GSA project also included a comprehensive cleaning of the building exterior as well.

The building's most publicly viewable sides are its west and north-facing sides, along 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue. And these next few slides are looking south, down 17th Street. Here are some closer-up views, looking directly at the building's west-facing side, from the sidewalk along the east side of 17th Street. And then here's a view looking at the building's south side.

However, the building's east side is not

directly viewable since there is no public access permitted along State Place and West Executive Avenue, based on the building's proximity to the White House and security limitations. And then here is one last view from the 17th Street sidewalk.

The project proposal includes cleaning and masonry preservation measures, such as repointing, sealant replacement, and stone restoration. And this would be to mitigate staining, cracking, and chipping on the building's exterior, as shown here in these submission photos. In addition, the applicant is proposing to paint the building exterior in white in order to visually align the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with the surrounding neoclassical architecture of other nearby buildings, and to match the color of the White House.

The concept submission includes two potential painting options. Option one would paint the building's granted exterior walls, but would not paint the building's exterior base. And

then option two would paint all of the exterior walls, including the building's base exterior walls. Here's a photo simulation of the option one scheme with the base walls not painted. And then here is option two with the base walls painted. Here's a ground view of option two with all exterior walls painted, looking at the building's north-facing side from Pennsylvania Avenue.

And then the remaining photo simulations in the submission all show the option two scheme on the left, an aerial perspective of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with the White House. And then the photo simulation on the right is looking towards the building's northeast corner from Pennsylvania Avenue. And then finally, here's a ground view that shows both the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and part of the White House together.

While staff supports the applicant's proposal to clean, repoint, replace the sealant, and restore the building's facades, additional

information is needed to fully evaluate the painting proposals as part of the next project submission to NCPC as listed here. First, we need to understand the project's potential visual and physical impacts, both to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and to the Lafayette Square National Historic Landmark District.

We wish to learn about any alternative measures the applicant considered, such as whether the applicant considered only cleaning and restoration work without painting the building exterior, and whether installing additional exterior lighting could be a possibility to help brighten the building in the future.

We require information about the paint from the application process to how the paint would adhere to the building and affect the granite stone, what the long-term maintenance would entail, and we also would like to request examples of where paint has been successfully applied to other granite buildings. And we wish to see realistic photo simulations of the painted

Eisenhower Executive Office Building, along with comparison photos from different specific pedestrian viewpoints around the site for both options 1 and 2.

And then finally, we would like to request a mockup of a painted granite sample on the EEOB site in advance of the next Commission review. And again, we believe this information will help the Commission evaluate the painting proposal during the project's future review stages.

So that concludes my presentation. All of these comments are provided in our staff report to the Commission, and we have also incorporated many of these comments into today's presentation. In terms of NEPA and the applicant's analysis of the project per the National Historic Preservation Act, we will continue to work with the applicant.

And I would also like to acknowledge that we did receive a lot of public interest in this project, with over 2,000 written comments submitted through our agency website. And the

comments all relate to the painting aspect of the project proposal, from its associated impacts to the building's structural and historic integrity, to the financial implications of the project, and the feasibility of the painting process itself.

And before I conclude, I would like to note that we have two Office of Administration members here with us today who are available to answer any project-related questions from the Commission. We have Mr. Josh Fisher, who serves as Assistant to the President and Director at the White House's Office of Administration. And we also have Mr. Ryan Erb, who is the Construction Operations Manager, also with the Office of Administration. And with that, that concludes my presentation. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thanks a lot, Mike. Do either of the two individuals here from the Office of Administration wish to be heard on this matter before we proceed? Seeing negative nods of the head, do any commissioners have any questions, either for Mike or the project team, before we

proceed? Yeah.

MR. CASH: Yeah, so I had a couple of questions about this before we get into -- before the testimony. But costs. So I know that we're a design-focused commission, but it feels something like this cost is something that's really important because we're adding essentially a very new big maintenance piece to this, in addition to just keeping the granite clean, to keeping it pointed. If it's true about how badly paint might adhere to granite, it seems like painting is just going to cause something that's going to be ongoing maintenance.

So I'm wondering if anyone from the project team, anyone from OA or GSA has costed this out and who's going to be responsible for the cleaning once we go, because I don't think that OA is really the one that really paints stuff. I thought that was GSA. So I'd appreciate any information you have on not necessarily just the cost of painting it, but the ongoing maintenance and what the plans are there.

MR. ERB: Thank you for that question, and thank you all for your comments. We are still in the process of -

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Sorry. Could you just introduce yourself for the record?

MR. ERB: Hi. Sorry, I apologize. Ryan Erb. I'm with the Office of Administration, Construction Operations. Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your questions. So we are still working through the process of a respected third-party vendor for testing all of the materials. So unfortunately, we can't rush that process. So we're trying to get all the data first before we make any confirmation on what exactly everything is going to cost.

Preliminary results have been positive as far as the ability for the silica to bond and then also for the silica to be removed. If we were to do expectations now, I think repainting or painting of the EEOB, we have a number of around $7.5 million that has been kind of a preliminary estimate. And we are planning to have about a 25

year lifespan for the paint before we need to be repainted.

But again, we are working with the third-party vendor to do all the appropriate testing, weatherizing of the samples, curing the samples, testing them again to see how the paint is responding and ensuring that the preliminary expectations are being met by the science and the data. So we have expectations, but we're working through the process to test those to confirm our initial assumptions.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: And does that estimate just relate to the painting itself or would that also include sort of the cleaning, repainting, the whole project here?

MR. ERB: I think we'd have to get into more of the details. I can't answer that offhand.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. That's -

MR. ERB: It's just the painting at this point, yeah.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Do any other commissioners have questions either for Mr. Weil

or the project team here?

MR. INGRASSIA: I have a question.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Commissioner Ingrassia?

MR. INGRASSIA: Thank you, Commissioner. So thank you very much for the presentation today. I really appreciate, especially the photorealistic quality of the images included in the level of detail. To the extent you're able to provide more of that future presentations, I think that would be beneficial to everyone here on this committee.

Just sort of as a follow-up to a fellow commissioner's question here, in terms of maybe you could speak to, and I realize we're still kind of in -- everyone's in a preliminary stage here still working out some of the details, but you or someone else could speak to the measures being taken to preserve the underlying granite and the structural integrity of the building itself. Maybe that involves a rigorous selection of the paint being used and planning out sort of the periodic upkeep of the building and how that

additional measures are being taken to ensure that the building itself remains preserved.

As the GSA rep on this panel, of course, we view this building as one of our crown jewels as part of our inventory, and we just want to make sure that proceeding in this direction, you know, extra precaution and measures are being taken to ensure that the quality of the building is preserved in the long term.

PARTICIPANT: Absolutely. Yeah, the concept submission did not include any of that information. I believe the applicant is still working on that, but I'd like to call them up.

MR. ERB: Yeah, absolutely. So thank you for your comments there. I think our main goal is preserving the building. We all love the EEOB. I know myself, I work in the building and I see how beautiful it is every day. So our number one goal here is to preserve and appreciate its beauty.

As far as the process that we're going through now, the first stage we're in is the

testing process. Once the testing process is confirmed, we would then go into the design process. We would hire an architect engineering team to actually design out those details because I think a lot of that preservation comes into mitigating the water infiltration.

So I think in the presentation, we talked about reapplying the sealant, but also looking at different conditions between the vertical and the horizontal surfaces and how we handle water and how we eliminate the ability for the water to infiltrate the building. Because as of right now, it's kind of just been maintaining, but as we can see that maintaining has kind of resulted in somewhat of a disrepair state.

So I think with this new application of the silicate paint, it would be a new design that resolves all of the water infiltration aspects that are currently facing the building. So thank you for your question.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Interesting. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am.

MS. BOWRON: Can you speak to the scope of work that was completed in 2004 through 2012? And I guess I'm surprised that that work is not maybe lasting as long as we thought it would. It's a pretty short duration for how long and how significant the investment was at that time. Is there scope that wasn't included in that project that we're anticipating undertaking now? Was there just advances in preservation practices that we think we'll get more out of this proposal?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yeah, I have to say I was a little surprised that the renovation and cleaning was that recent because the exterior of EEOB looks filthy when you look at it now. No offense, but they're staining on a lot of the granite. Yeah, that's an interesting question.

MR. ERB: Yes. I mean, because I think if you look at the dates, it was 2012 to 2014 when they finished up, so obviously over the past 14 years that has aged quite aggressively. And it's also kind of hard to tell how far the building was brought back to the baseline. So maybe after it

was completed in 2012, there was probably some staining that that didn't get removed at the time and then now it's just getting like more visible and more apparent as it kind of slowly builds up on the building.

So I think we're hopeful that the silicate application will address all of the sealant and water mitigation efforts, but also have a material that will wear with the elements and be able to be touched up or addressed if need be as opposed to every 14 years having to be, you know, completely cleaned again.

And the preliminary data we have shows that the painting can basically be cleaned similar to how you would clean the building. So there'd be no additional abrasives or chemicals that would need to be added to maintain the building from the preliminary data. So, thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Interesting. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am.

MS. COZART: Thank you for the presentation. My question is about the lighting

piece. Recently, the Commission looked at Union Station's lighting program and it was amazing to see how it really transformed the look of the building. And so I'm wondering one, if that's a part of what you all will be looking at.

I also am curious about, if you could say a little bit more about kind of the testing that you're doing related to how kind of reversible or removable the paint is. And then thirdly, interested in understanding it was in the Executive Director's recommendation related to the Section 106 process, the timeline for initiating that.

MR. ERB: Yes. Thank you very much. So go to -- your first question was what, again? Sorry.

MS. COZART: First question about lighting. Is that something -

MR. ERB: Lighting, yes. We would look at this from a comprehensive standpoint. So I think anything that can be done to improve the visual connection of the building to the White

House and the surrounding White House campus would be included in this process. So the silicate finish is just part of the beautification that we would plan to undertake for this process. Yes.

MS. COZART: And will that lighting be something that will be a part of your submission?

MR. ERB: I think if that is something the Commission would like to see, I think we would be happy to include that in future reviews. But as of right now, the main goal is to review the silicate aspect of this project.

MS. COZART: Okay. And then the -

MR. ERB: The reversibility.

MS. COZART: Yes, the reversibility and then the Section 106.

MR. ERB: Yes. So the reversibility, we currently have not touched the EEOB. We do not have permission to engage in testing on the EEOB. But we have been able to find some samples from a quarry in Maine, the Vinalhaven Quarry, and do our own preliminary testing on that. Obviously, that's very preliminary and this is new stone as

opposed to stone that's 130 years old. But the testing was able to apply the silicate, have a strong bond to the stone, and then also have the ability with just water to remove the silicate.

So it's all preliminary, so we don't want to get too excited about it. But the initial data was encouraging for this process.

MS. COZART: Okay. And then just lastly on the Section 106.

MR. FISHER: Josh Fisher, Office of Administration. We are working on Section 106. It's under process and should be available shortly.

MS. COZART: Okay. Awesome.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you. Any other questions before we proceed to public comment? Stuart?

MR. LEVENBACH: Yeah, I have a couple. All right. And so then some of these are just built on some of the comments in the record and just where it might be helpful to speak to them. First, I just want to say I thought the renderings

were really helpful. So thank you for that. When the modernization was done, I know there's some white paint already. There's like white trim on the EEOB. Was any of that repainted or anything done to the white paint currently on the EEOB during that modernization?

MR. ERB: I think the white paint on the roof ridges is mostly on the Cast Iron. So that paint was part of the modernization. It was all repainted during that time.

MR. LEVENBACH: Yeah, interesting. Yeah, because it has aged a little bit since then.

MR. ERB: Yeah.

MR. LEVENBACH: Okay. Can you talk a little more about the two options and so what you're thinking around the two options? One, the full paint versus painting all except the base?

MR. ERB: Yes. I think the current desire right now is to have the full building painted with the silicate. But the two options basically use that datum line between the Vinalhaven granite and the Roanoke, Virginia

granite. So above that first ground floor is all the Roanoke, Virginia granite and below that is all the Vinalhaven, Maine granite. So we just wanted to show that option.

If we just painted the silicate on the Roanoke, Virginia, it would look like this. And then if we didn't, it would be the full building. And it's an architectural detail that has been used in the past to kind of differentiate the base versus the other part of the building. So it lended itself to being an option, but we do currently prefer the full building being painted with silicate.

MR. LEVENBACH: Okay. So one of the things that came out in the comments is there was a comment that it was intended to be unpainted. But there are other buildings of that era that have been painted, historical, you know, mason brick that has been painted. I think it might be helpful to address a little bit like putting this building in the context of others and how some of the other potential points of reference you can

talk to from that era and how they were painted and just putting that in the overall kind of arc of the buildings from that era.

MR. ERB: Yes. I think that's something we can work on. Obviously the example that comes to head is the White House right next door, which wasn't intended to be painted at first. They kind of tried to not paint it at first, but then it eventually, for different reasons, became a painted building. So we will work on that for the next presentation.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: For different reasons is a very good way of saying smoke damage from when the British burned it down.

MR. ERB: Yeah.

MR. LEVENBACH: I have one more question. So I think the cost came up. It also came up a lot in the comments. But I think what's interesting is there is a lot of information, but you could augment it in terms of the baseline cost, even if it's unpainted. And you talk about water infiltration. There's a 25-year cycle to maintain

the building if it was painted and putting that in the context of whatever the baseline is unpainted, what are the baseline maintenance costs that people can see as a reference point, just what the incremental cost is?

Because if you just look at it in isolation here, the cost to maintain it on a 25year cycle, you don't necessarily understand that there are baseline costs just as an unpainted building, and being able to consider that as a reference point.

MR. ERB: Yeah, absolutely. I think if we were to -- once we get the data in, we can extrapolate out the maintenance package and what those costs would be. So yeah, that's a great idea. Thank you.

MR. LEVENBACH: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Anything else either for Mike or for the project team? Yeah, Commissioner?

MR. CASH: So I do have one other question, because I've, except for Commissioner

Dixon, I think that I've served longer on this dais than anyone else here. I have to say it's really kind of jarring that for all these years we've had so many White House projects come to us. It's the tennis pavilion, the fence. We just had the screening facility last month. And up until the last six months, this is the first time we've ever had the Office of Administration or the White House come and not GSA.

So I guess I'm just wondering, why is OA leading this? Why isn't GSA leading this? We've talked a little bit about 106. GSA is the one that has all the expertise and all the preservationists and everything. I would imagine the White House staff doesn't have a huge preservation staff outside what goes on inside the White House. So how did this come to be OA and not GSA?

MR. ERB: I think for myself as the technical construction architect on the project, I can speak to the details on the building. As far as the reason why I'm here and someone else

is not here, I don't think I have the information to speak on that.

MR. CASH: And I guess I would also just -- that naturally leads to the question, because I know there is some ongoing litigation around this question. But so if the White House is asserting that because this is now part of the White House grounds, it could be under the OA, which leads to a whole bunch of implications with Section 106 and everything else, what's kind of the limiting factor here?

So could the White House decide they want to go a couple more blocks away or anywhere in the District or anywhere in the National Capitol Region and we kind of end up in the same situation? So I'm guessing like where's the limit of where the White House is going to get involved as opposed to GSA or the traditional agencies?

MR. ERB: I'm kind of taking that as a rhetorical question. I don't have the expertise to answer that here. But I appreciate your comments. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Any other questions for the project team or for our team? Hearing none, we have 11 people signed up to speak on this matter today, some in person, some virtual. As we've done in the past, we're going to hear from witnesses in groups of four and hold commission questions until, or comments, until after we've made it through four at a time just to keep things moving today.

Our first four witnesses are Greg Werkheiser, Miriam Werkheiser, Dorothy Robyn and Alison Hoagland. I believe the Werkheisers are currently engaged in litigation over this project. I would just note that for the Commission's information. Mr. Werkheiser, you're here representing the DC Preservation League, and as a result, you have five minutes to present your testimony. And please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. WERKHEISER: Thank you. Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you especially to

your staff for their experience and their integrity and their professionalism. My name is Greg Werkheiser. I am partner at the law firm Cultural Heritage Partners. We are legal counsel to the DC Preservation League in the litigation.

The plaintiffs in that lawsuit are challenging the administration's failure to follow federal law in advancing the President's personal preference to paint this building bright white. We are here, if I can speak plainly, because painting is a terrible idea and no one with influence has yet had the courage to tell the President no.

First, as a threshold matter, this proposal is before you unlawfully. Sir, I'm going to answer the question that you just asked. Changes to the EEOB are subject to mandatory compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. And that's because Congress defined the White House grounds as a specific 18 acres and the EEOB is not in it, and a federal court in DC confirmed

those 18 acres and the EEOB is not in it. So it is subject to those laws.

The General Services Administration is responsible for implementing that review. GSA may only legally delegate its authority to another federal agency. The proposal before you is from the White House, which is not considered a federal agency. Why these logistical shenanigans? The answer is because federal courts can't review a decision by a non-federal agency to harm a historic building. If you -- now the White House is going to tell you, don't worry about it. We are going to voluntarily comply with Section 106 in NEPA.

Mr. Chairman, they didn't teach us that in law school. Voluntary compliance is not legal compliance. If you endorse this jurisdictional gamesmanship, any president could bypass review of any project affecting historic properties simply by routing them through the White House and insulating them from judicial review. The American people should not have to accept trust us

as a substitute for mandatory legal protections for the places that matter most to them.

Now let's talk about the expert consensus. We surveyed 25 of the nation's leading architects, conservators, and experts in masonry and paint regarding this exact proposal. This building, this granite, this particular form of paint. These professionals have led some of the most important restoration projects in the United States, including restoration of the White House in the U.S. Capitol. Several have been trained in Europe by the manufacturers of silicate paints on how to apply them and not apply them.

Collectively, those experts represent more than 650 years of relevant experience. Their conclusions were unanimous and straightforward. One, do not paint the granite under any circumstance and with any type of paint including mineral silicate paint. Two, the claimed benefits of mineral silicate paint depends on a chemical bond that does not occur in granite. You can paint the White House because it's not granite.

Three, the paint will not strengthen the building or protect it in any way. In fact, the preparation process itself will permanently damage the stone surface. The coating will trap moisture and accelerate deterioration. Four, staining will still occur, only now it will be viewed against the backdrop of a bright white paint instead of the gray which hides some of the staining that comes when you have a building that's in an urban environment like this one.

Fifth, once applied, the paint cannot be removed without causing additional significant damage to the building's intricate masonry. Sixth, maintenance requirements will become effectively continuous. This building will be the East Coast version of the Golden Gate Bridge. You're going to start painting on one side and by the time you get to the other side, you got to start again. Seventh, scaffolding and workers will become permanent features of one of the nation's most sensitive security environments.

And eighth, and finally, there was

unanimous agreement that obviously painting the EEOB white would be historically inappropriate and visually destructive to the larger context in which it sits. These are the experts that will testify in court and their testimony will be

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Mr. Werkheiser, I'm sorry. Your time has expired.

MR. WERKHEISER: Thank you for your time and your attention. I look forward to the conversation.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: And if we have any questions for you, we'll get back around to that after our next three witnesses. Our next witness is Miriam Werkheiser. And ma'am, you're representing Cultural Heritage Partners. You will also have five minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you're ready.

MS. WERKHEISER: Good afternoon, Commissioners and staff. Thank you for the

opportunity to comment. My name is Miriam Werkheiser. I'm founding partner of Cultural Heritage Partners here on behalf of my firm, which is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit related to this matter. I stand alongside the more than 1,000 professional architects, preservationists, and design professionals who have submitted comments opposing this project to the Commission on Fine Arts and to your commission.

This proposal is not simply about appearance. It concerns permanence, federal stewardship, and long-term integrity of one of the nation's most important civic buildings. I want to make three points. First, painting the EEOB would cause irreversible physical damage to the building. Painting granite is not a debated issue. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings state that historic granite should not be painted.

The federal government is supposed to follow these standards when fulfilling its obligations to protect our nation's cultural

heritage under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. State historic preservation officers across the country and the National Park Service enforce these standards when private property owners renovate historic properties as part of this historic tax credit program. Why would NCPC deviate from the federal standards here? Those standards are in place for a reason.

As NCPC's deeply experienced staff will tell you, granite is not meant to be painted. Proper adhesion requires abrasion of the surface, which damages the stone. Once applied, the paint traps moisture within the stone and over time, that moisture causes cracking, flaking, and degradation of the surface.

The addition of modern lighting could dramatically enhance the building's presence day and night in ways that are fully reversible. And equally important, once paint is applied to historic masonry, it cannot be removed without further damaging the stone.

Proposals to use mineral silicate coatings do not resolve these problems. That paint is designed for substrates such as limestone and sandstone. Granite lacks the chemical properties necessary for proper bonding. This conclusion is supported by leading experts. And I'll point out the White House is not granite, which is why it can be painted.

Second, painting the EEOB would fundamentally alter one of the most important civic compositions in the United States. The EEOB was designed to showcase the natural tone and texture of its stone. The gray granite is not incidental. It is the design. It also plays a critical role in the visual balance of this part of Washington. The EEOB and the Treasury Building frame and highlight the White House. Their gray tones allow the White House to stand apart as a singular white focal point.

The contrast between the gray masonry buildings and the White House's white facade is intentional and essential. Painting the EEOB

white, particularly given its larger scale, would disrupt that balance and diminish the White House as the focal point of the civic landscape. This is not a minor visual change. It is a fundamental change to how one of the most important places in this country is experienced.

Third, there are better proven alternatives to achieve the stated goal without harm. As we just talked about, the building hasn't been cleaned in 12 years. Conservation-grade cleaning can restore the granite's natural brightness and uniformity without damaging the material itself. Repointing can restore the clarity and durability of the masonry, and lighting improvements would help.

Even simple interventions like window treatments that increase light reflectivity can significantly lighten the building's appearance at low cost and no risk. And improved landscaping could brighten the building's appeal. These are not theoretical ideas. They are standard, accepted, and effective preservation practices.

If the President would pursue these beautification efforts and leave the painting concept behind, he would have the support and gratitude of the American people.

Finally, I want to close with a reminder of how this building has been understood across generations. In 1988, President Ronald Reagan wrote of the building as one of America's finest examples of its architectural style and an architectural treasure. He noted that time had added to its dignity and that its preservation reflects the best of our national character. This sentiment is exactly right. This building has endured for more than a century because each generation has chosen to preserve it, not to remake it.

Last week, Susan Eisenhower, granddaughter of President Eisenhower, spoke out to remind us that this building belongs not to a single person, not even to the President of the United States, but rather it belongs to the American people. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, ma'am. Next

up, Dorothy Robyn. Ms. Robyn, you have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. ROBYN: Thank you very much. I'm not a lawyer. I don't represent anyone. I served as the public building commissioner at GSA from 2012 to 2014. GSA Administrator Dan Tangherlini and I negotiated the lease of the old post office with the Trump Organization. Prior to that, I spent three years as the senior real property officer at the Department of Defense with DoD-wide oversight of U.S. military bases.

Also relevant, as a member of President Clinton's White House economic team, I spent eight years in the old executive office building, as we called it then, the last four years in an office that was originally built to house the Assistant Secretary of War. I strongly oppose this proposal to paint the EEOB. Greg and Miriam have covered very well the first two points that I was going to make.

The gray granite facade was intrinsic to the design of the EEOB. This genius Alfred Mullett who picked out the quarries based on the tone of the granite and positioned the stone to create -to define the architectural features and create a polychromatic appearance.

The second point is the one that Greg made so well. It's a fundamental rule of historic preservation, do not paint granite. So let me spend my short time making two other points. First, the public building service that I led from 2012 to 2014 would have dismissed as laughable a proposal to paint the EEOB. First, the EEOB is the crown jewel in GSA's building portfolio, which is managed by the public building service. Painting the exterior of the EEOB runs directly counter to PBS's decades-long effort begun under the Reagan administration to reserve, restore, and preserve this magnificent building.

More broadly, this proposal undermines PBS's role as a national leader in historic preservation and a champion for the Secretary of

Interior's standards, which this proposal violates many times over.

Lastly, PBS is in no position to take on the higher cost of maintaining a paint-coated EEOB. Congressional appropriators have treated the Federal Buildings Fund as a piggy bank, leaving PBS with a 26-billion dollar repair and maintenance backlog, which is a major reason that so many federal buildings are in such poor condition. And you have a bird's-eye view of that from this building looking at the FBI headquarters.

The last point I want to make is the President's destructive approach to EEOB is ironic given his -- the positive role he played in restoring the old post office, another granite icon that had a remarkably similar -

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I'm very sorry, ma'am, but your time has expired.

MS. ROBYN: Okay. All right.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you for your service to our country and for joining us here

today. Next up, we have Alison Hoagland. And Ms. Hoagland, you also have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. HOAGLAND: Thank you. My name is Alison Hoagland. I'm here today to express my opposition to the proposal to paint the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. I'm a longtime resident of Washington, DC, a professor emerita of history and historic preservation and the author of six books on American architectural history. I have a long and deep commitment to historic architecture and its power to explain the past and inform the present.

Much has been made of the fact that the EEOB, completed in 1888, was roundly condemned almost as soon as it was completed. I'm sure we'll hear some of those quotes played for laughs. But it's important to realize that architectural styles have uneven popularity and it is not at all unusual for a style to go out of fashion and then return. Broadly, Victorian styles of the 19th

century were rejected in the 20th and viewed as dark and dowdy, the brown decades, as they were called.

But in the 1970s, people began to realize that buildings should be judged on their own merits, not by current day standards, and Victorian buildings that had been derided as too busy or too dark began to be appreciated. The EEOB is part of this trend. The granite was a deliberate choice on the part of the architect, Alfred B. Mullett, to adorn his second empire design. This is not a style for which white would have been considered.

The granite evokes permanence and solidity to a government building in which three related departments were uniting in a desire for efficiency. The granite is also subtly colored, as Pamela Scott and Antoinette Lee wrote of the building. In Raking Light, the gray Virginia granite takes on a violet hue, which, combined with the violet gray of the slate and the verdigris of the copper in the mansard roofs, combines to

the overall richness of effect achieved by relatively simple means. Paint would destroy this subtle coloring.

Furthermore, the building is a National Historic Landmark designated for its current unpainted appearance, and repainting it would violate the character of its granite exterior. By the way, I don't know of any granite public building that has been painted. A white exterior on this enormous building would also draw attention away from the White House, which should be the primary focus of this street frontage.

Painting the EEOB would introduce a host of complications and costs, as we've heard. Paint is difficult to remove from granite, so the original appearance would be lost forever. Paint has to be renewed as often as every 10 years or even more frequently, so painting the building now would be introducing a maintenance problem for years to come.

I urge the National Capital Planning Commission to appreciate the Eisenhower Executive

Office Building for what it was designed to be and what it is today. A superb example of the French second empire style constructed of a gray granite that changes subtly in changing light. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: I have a quick question for you, Ms. Hoagland. And first of all, thank you for your testimony. You said that you didn't know of a single example of a public building in granite being painted, and then you said that paint is difficult to remove from granite. In your experience, are you aware of, I guess, nonpublic granite buildings that have been painted and then they've tried to remove the paint from? Is that something that exists?

MS. HOAGLAND: No, I just didn't want to say that I knew about all buildings in the world.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Sure. I appreciate it. As one who's quoted Mark Twain and Henry Adams for this commission before, I hear your concern that architectural styles do indeed come in and out of fashion, but thank you for your testimony. Do any commissioners have any

questions for, I guess, any of these first four witnesses, including Ms. Hoagland, or Professor Hoagland, I should say? Hearing none, thank you all for your testimony.

Our next four witnesses are Bryan Green, Danilo Feliciano, Priya Jain, and Rob Niweg. I think Bryan Green, the first of these, is joining us virtually. Mr. Green, are you with us?

MR. GREEN: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, sir. You have three minutes to provide your testimony, and you can proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. GREEN: Thank you very much. Commissioner Scharf, members of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Bryan Green. I'm an architectural historian and preservation professional based in Richmond, Virginia, and I am here in opposition to this proposal, specifically the portion of the proposal that proposes to paint the character defining gray Virginia granite.

I speak to you today as someone who has

previously evaluated the performance of mineral silica paint on historic stone buildings, none of them granite, by the way. The submitter of record for this project is the Executive Office of the President, Office of Administration, not the GSA, and not a qualified architectural professional. No licensed preservation architect, no building conservator, and no materials specialist is named anywhere in the submission as having assessed the building's condition or designed the proposed treatment.

The Commission is being asked to propose -- to approve a permanent alteration of a National Historic Landmark on the basis of observations by unnamed stonemasons reported in summary without documentation or attribution. This is not a technical deficiency, it is a core deficiency.

The Secretary of the Interior's standards require that work of this kind be developed by professionals meeting specific qualification standards in architecture, historic preservation, or architectural history. An

independent conditions assessment and treatment plan reviewed by a credentialed conservator are the baseline expectations for any project touching a landmark's character-defining features. Neither of those things exists here.

Against that absence stands the considered judgment of 25 specialists in architectural conservation, masonry, and building science, as we heard of earlier in this presentation today. Each brought direct project experience on buildings including the White House in the United States Capitol. Their conclusions were without dissent. Mineral silicate paint will simply not bond to granite, will not improve its structural durability, and cannot be removed without causing permanent additional damage to the stone.

The submission before you today makes its purpose absolutely plain. The building is describing lacking, quote, symbolic cohesion with the White House. That is not a maintenance objective, it is an aesthetic one, and pursuing it

by painting a granite NHL does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's standards by any reading. The Section 106 process required under the National Historic Preservation Act has not been completed. This proposal should not receive concept approval before that process concludes.

I urge the Commission to decline approval at concept and to require, as a condition of further review, an independent assessment by a licensed preservation architect and a building conservator meeting the Secretary of the Interior's professional qualification standards. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Green. Our next witness is Danilo Feliciano, who I believe is here in person. Sir, you have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. FELICIANO: Thank you very much, sir, and thank you very much to the Council.

(Foreign Language.)

MR. FELICIANO: Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed. Thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow. Psalm 50, verse 9, out of the Vulgate. A man named David wrote that line. I feel it's a fitting Bible verse to remind this august assembly about, considering that the topic of conversation is painting and building white that's named after a David. David Dwight Eisenhower. It's literally a House of David.

Interesting fact, his first name wasn't Dwight. It was David. His mother called him Dwight because his father was named David, and she just didn't want to call him Junior. But anyhow, things get turned around and then lost to history until someone takes a few moments to uncover that truth.

Like it was 24 years ago today on May 7, 2002, that the old Executive Office Building was rededicated as the Eisenhower Building by President Bush. It was also 81 years ago today that the entire German Army surrendered

unconditionally to President Eisenhower or General Eisenhower at the time. President Bush said that President Eisenhower's name fits this building because as a great soldier, a great president, and a good man, Dwight D. Eisenhower served his country with distinction.

President Bush also said that the city of Washington is accustomed to change, but this neighborhood looks much as it did in 1929. Now, it's with a heavy heart that I say that those words are no longer true, but what does remain true is that it was during President Eisenhower's term in office that the building was spared from a wrecking ball.

I've been in most of the historic buildings in this city. I've been in the White House, the Capitol Building, the Supreme Court of the United States, and a few more, but I've never been in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. They suspended tours back in 2001. They've never restarted. I wonder why.

Now, if you read through the comments

given to this Honorable Commission, then you've already seen the opinions of engineers, architects, landscapers, designers, people who've worked in the building, and many more. All but two statements were against painting this building. One said if you had to paint, use lime wash was his recommendation, and the other said trying to figure out how comments work. So I can't add a more thorough or more professional opinion than what's already been submitted.

However, it just doesn't seem like common sense to paint a building that's only been cleaned twice in 150 years because it looks nice in a computer-generated picture. Sure, it might look nice for when the current president leaves office, but give it another 10 years or so, and it probably won't be.

Now, there's a movie called Death Becomes Her, and it's about two women who discover a magic potion that makes them immortal, and to cover the wear and tear, they end up spray-painting their bodies. Unfortunately, it makes them brittle, and

they begin to fall and break apart. They're still alive, but broken, a mockery of the beauty they once had. It would be a shame to paint over such a historic structure with magic paint. It's a temporary fix for a lasting legacy.

Could you imagine the Statue of Liberty painted over, and would they actually make sure that you could read the plaque at the bottom at the end? Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much for all of the work that you do. Thank you. My name is Danilo Feliciano. Thank you for receiving my testimony.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Feliciano. Next up, we have, attending virtually, Priya Jain, who's representing the Society for Architectural Historians. Ms. Jain, you have five minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. JAIN: Good afternoon, Commissioners, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Priya Jain, and I'm a

licensed architect in the state of Texas. I offer these comments as a private citizen and as Chair of the Heritage Conservation Committee of the Society of Architectural Historians. These views do not represent the opinions of my employer, Texas A&M University.

The Society of Architectural Historians, founded in 1940, is the leading organization for architectural historians in North America. We focus on the history of the built environment and study buildings, like the EEOB, as important testaments to cultural values of our past and their enduring relevance in our present and future.

The EEOB not only occupies a prominent location next to the White House, but its ornate granite and slate exterior make it the best example of the French Second Empire style of architecture in our nation, so much so that the building was designated a National Historic Landmark, the highest honor for buildings in our country, in 1969.

We want to emphasize that buildings like

the EEOB serve as a tangible archive, offering direct evidence to architectural historians and the public of past construction techniques, design ideas, craftsmanship, and cultural values. As such, they deserve our best care and most responsible stewardship. Unfortunately, the proposal before you fails to do so. Painting the granite facade of the building white will adversely and permanently alter this important landmark and should be rejected.

In support of our recommendation, we offer the following points. First, the 1969 National Historic Landmark listing for the EEOB specifically lists, and I quote, the purple-gray Virginia granite walls, end quote, as a character-defining feature. Throughout its history, the building has survived multiple attempts to alter its appearance in 1917 and 1930, when plans were prepared to clad the building in marble, and again in 1957, when proposed demolition was thwarted owing to public opposition.

In fact, as noted in 1969, the EEOB was designated a National Landmark precisely because it had stayed unaltered. This current proposal to paint the building white will change it drastically, deviate from historic intent, and lead to a loss of architectural integrity.

Integrity is defined by the federal government as the ability of a building to convey its historic significance and is assessed in historic materials, workmanship, and design, all of which will be compromised by this proposal. Most importantly, integrity determines whether buildings can even remain listed as National Historic Landmarks. We urge you to not endanger the building's status as a landmark.

Second, our own federal standards for the treatment of historic properties state clearly, and I quote, applying paint or other coatings such as stucco to masonry that has been historically unpainted or uncoated is not recommended, end quote. This advice protects not only against loss of integrity as noted before, but also stems from

well-documented harm to historic masonry by paints and coatings that others have highlighted.

In closing, we want to stress that even if it was technically feasible to paint the EEOB, which the current plan fails to establish, this concept proposal should be rejected because simply put, it is conceptually flawed. Such a drastic and irreversible change to a landmark's visual appearance is not the correct way to address repair issues. There are well-established and time-tested procedures for repairing granite buildings across the nation, none of which involve painting the stone.

The American public relies on agencies like the NCPC to steward our built heritage and protect it from irreparable harm. We therefore urge you to promptly reject this proposal. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Professor Jain. Our next witness is, I'm going to butcher the pronunciation of this, but Rob Niweg, who I believe is here with us in person. Mr. Niweg, am

I pronouncing that correctly or am I way off?

MR. NIWEG: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Thank you, sir. You are here representing the National Trust for Historic Preservation. You have five minutes to provide your testimony, sir, and please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. NIWEG: Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, and staff of the Commission. My name is Rob Niweg, and I'm here speaking on behalf of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Thank you for this opportunity to share our comments about the proposal before you to paint the exterior of the EEOB. We urge the National Capital Planning Commission to consider the following points in connection with your mission to preserve and enhance Washington's extraordinary historical and cultural assets.

After our review of the information that's been made public, the National Trust is concerned about the severe and irreparable adverse

effects of the proposed exterior change to the historic EEOB. I'm going to use my time to highlight three of those points.

First, the EEOB is a contributing element of the Lafayette Square Historic District, and importantly, this architecturally significant building is a National Historic Landmark. That, of course, is our nation's highest and most coveted historic designation, and the designation serves as permanent notice to the public that the EEOB occupies an important and a unique position in the collective story of all Americans.

Accordingly, the EEOB's federal steward should respect the aesthetic characteristics that qualify this landmark for NHL designation. That is, the subtle and the rich polychromatic appearance of the granite walls, the slate roof, cast iron detailing, were all purposefully chosen by the landmark's architect.

The design, the colors, the materials here are integral to the EEOB's architectural significance and are character-defining features.

It is a basic tenet of historic preservation to protect the character-defining features of landmarks instead of concealing them behind layers of paint.

Second, this proposal will over time physically damage the landmark. Coating the exterior surface with an impermeable layer of paint would trap moisture within the masonry and lead to cracking, scaling, and spalling on the building's exterior. And if that weren't enough, painting the historic building would require new cycles of continued assessment and repainting and cleaning perpetually, which is needlessly expensive for future taxpayers.

Third and finally, painting the building would be irreversible. Removing paint from masonry surface is difficult, it's costly, and inevitably degrades the surface. The historic EEOB has been preserved unpainted since its completion in 1888. In sum, painting the exterior now would obscure the landmark's historic appearance, would undermine its character

defining features, and accelerate the building's deterioration. And these are three undeniable reasons to reject the proposal to paint the exterior.

Thank you for considering the views of the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you for your testimony, sir. At this time, do any commissioners have questions for any of the previous four witnesses? That would be Bryan Green, Mr. Feliciano, Professor Jain, or Mr. Niweg. Hearing and seeing none, we'll proceed to our last group of witnesses. The first of these is David Parker, who is joining us virtually. Mr. Parker, are you with us? Mr. Parker, can you hear me? Do we have Mr. Parker?

MR. PARKER: I'm here. Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We can hear you.

MR. PARKER: Good. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Sir, you have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed

whenever you're ready.

MR. PARKER: Thank you, Chair Scharf and Commissioners. I'm David Parker, a fellow of the American Institute of Architects and a practicing architect for the last 36 years. I oppose painting the building's granite exterior because it violates the design integrity of a National Historic Landmark. The building's polychromatic granite is integral to the landmark structure's design with its complementary slate roof.

The building has stood for 150 years unpainted, and unpainted granite was specifically cited as the major reason for it listing as a National Historic Landmark. Painting the building improperly associated with the appearance of the White House. Although next to the White House, EEOB is not and never was intended to be an architectural extension of it.

Both EEOB and the exposed granite Treasury Building opposite were conceived as city blocks, architecturally independent from the President's House and, as shown in photos I

provided, relate to the urban fabric of the city, not the intentionally smaller scale and park-like setting of the White House. Painting EEOB white will overpower, not enhance, the White House. Painting EEOB will trap moisture in the stone and its mortar joints. Granite is a natural material and needs to breathe.

Hermetically sealing stone negates its ability to adapt to changing moisture conditions, trapping salts and particulates while causing ferrous metal-iron ties to rust, expand, and potentially crack the stone. Even paints that claim to be breathable still hinder moisture and are even more difficult to remove from the stone pores.

Additionally, paint masks problems. Painting it will necessitate substantial ongoing maintenance costs. Once painted, stone must be repainted frequently, potentially every five to seven years. The immense EEOB has over 900 stone columns and pilasters, plus intricately carved cornices, and repainting the 134-foot high

structure will be exorbitantly expensive, requiring cleaning, scraping, and enormous scaffolding that will be up for months or years each time.

Painting EEOB will substantially add to ongoing taxpayer expense to maintain the building. Painting EEOB will permanently disfigure the character of the building. It would be virtually impossible to remove the paint once it has been coated, requiring sandblasting and other deleterious techniques, causing irreparable harm to the stone, as well as damage to its 1,572 wood windows.

And painting the building disrespects the Secretary of the Interior's standards and disregards the National Park Service's own first preservation brief guideline from 1975, still valid today. Painting not only violates EEOB's integrity, it also improperly impinges on the White House and President's Park. I respectfully ask the commissioners to review the annotated images appended to my submitted testimony and to

deny the proposal to paint this treasured National Historic Landmark.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Parker. Next up, we have Diane Marlon, who I believe is also with us virtually.

MS. MARLON: Yes, thank you, Commissioners. My name is Diane Marlon. I'm a resident and a taxpayer from Urbana, Illinois. I'm here today to urge this commission to recommend against painting the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Coating this enormous building with paint is a very expensive, purely cosmetic move. It's like putting makeup on the building.

It will result and set the government and us, taxpayers, on a cycle, seven to ten-year cycle, of repairing and repainting to address the inevitable peeling, flaking, water infiltration, cracking, and staining that will result. And over time, painting will damage the stone itself.

This project also would set a very dangerous precedent for similar overreach onto

other federal buildings that really are outside the legal authority of the White House. In short, from a resident and taxpayer's perspective, there is no rational explanation for this proposal to paint EEOB. The building exterior, and we've seen this everywhere and with other institutions and very architecturally significant buildings, it can be restored to its original lovely muted granite luster by careful cleaning and conservation.

And I would encourage the Commission to actually pay more attention to the opportunities that lie with lighting. The magic of lighting is really remarkable. You can brighten recessed areas that are in the shadow during the day, and you can use tasteful lighting to highlight the architectural elements during the evening.

One of the best examples just recently we've seen is the Flatiron Building in New York City. Apparently, it's being lit for the first time in decades. And if you haven't seen pictures of what they're doing there, take a look at that. But I encourage you to vote against painting this

building. It doesn't need it, and you need to preserve the architectural integrity as it was designed. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Marlon. Next up, we have, I believe in person, Nancy Witherell. Is Nancy with us? Ma'am, you have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. WITHERELL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Commission. It's a new experience for me to be standing at this podium because for more than 16 years, I stood at that podium every month presenting EDRs and serving as this commission's Federal Preservation Officer. Upon leaving NCPC, I went to GSA, serving as the Preservation Officer for the National Capitol Region, meaning our office was the steward of the EEOB.

The building's exterior, as you have heard, was cleaned and its interior was restored during the early years of this century. The exterior, with its richly colored granite,

absolutely right for its exuberant post-Civil War era, is truly as awe-inspiring as the interior. I'm speaking today to endorse the Executive Director's recommendation and to ask you to approve it and to urge the applicant to fulfill all the requests in the EDR for research, consultation, analysis, and evaluation.

And it should not be only for the building itself, but for its setting, which includes not just the White House, although that is the primary focus of the setting, but of all of the Lafayette Square National Historic Landmark District. The District is a remarkable ensemble of important buildings, perhaps the most unique in our nation, that collectively illustrates the progression of architectural styles, colors, and materials over almost two centuries.

The Park Service's most recent update of the district documentation even includes the two newest buildings, NEOB and Markey, as now historic contributing resources. They're having achieved significance for their role in the early historic

preservation movement in our nation.

Given its size and grandeur, the EEOB is naturally an important contributor to this historic ensemble. How ironic it would be if the historic district that recognizes the importance of the preservation profession to our nation's history were also the district that contained a landmark building mistreated by improper alteration in our own time.

The historic preservation profession is closely allied with scientific research and the collection of field experience, and you've heard a lot of it here today. And it's incorporated and codified in NHPA and its regs and guidance. And our profession is also based on consultation and consensus building.

I referred in my letter to my years while at GSA working with the Trump Organization, indirectly with the President, and directly and regularly with his daughter during the rehab of the old post office, which was subject to 106. We regularly encountered differences and

perspectives, but we had the same vision for renewing the building and for reaching consensus on the assessments of the OPO based on its physical condition. The EEOB will benefit from the same spirit of consensus building, and I'm hopeful it can be reached.

Our presidents are our nation's stewards and chief. In the spirit of beautifying our nation's capital, what a contribution to our nation it would be for this administration to commit to and implement appropriate maintenance and improvements to the EEOB. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Ms. Witherell. Thank you for your service to our country and to this commission. At this time, are there any questions for any of these three witnesses from members of the Commission? Seeing none, that concludes the public testimony portion of this agenda item. Thank you to all who took the time to testify today, especially those of you who came down in person.

At this time, is there a motion to

approve comments on the concept plans for the Eisenhower Executive Office Building Exterior Beautification Project?

MR. LEVENBACH: So moved.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Is there a second?

MR. INGRASSIA: Second.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Ingrassia. With that, I'll now open it to the Commission for discussion, and I'll start deliberations on this point with Commissioner Ingrassia.

MR. INGRASSIA: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate the opportunity and I appreciate the public commentary today. I just want to say, just generally speaking, I hear the comments. You know, I know no president, no administration has been more committed to the preservation of history and beautification and, you know, just making our cities more cleaner, nicer, more beautiful. So I know a lot of thought and a lot of preparation is going into these

projects, and wherever the initiative may lead, I know that's at the forefront of this administration's priorities. But with that, no further commentary.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon, if you're still with us?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: I believe he stepped away, but I'll let you know if he comes back.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. We can come back around. Commissioner Cash?

MR. CASH: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say a few words. I really appreciate the staff's work here. I know we say that during every presentation we get, but I think the questions that you've all identified are really important in this case because this project can really put the Commission in an unusual posture. The applicant here is arguing in court right now that traditional judicial review may actually be limited while the Office of Administration is describing preservation and environmental review

as purely voluntary.

If that position is accepted, then NCPC could become one of the only public bodies meaningfully reviewing the treatment of the National Historical Landmark. Not HPO, not GSA, not even the courts. That makes it especially important that the Commission receive complete answers on the process, the precedent, the cost of maintenance, reversibility, and all the preservation's impact before we take final action.

For that reason, I think there's a strong argument for deferring commission action until the courts at least preliminarily address the jurisdictional process questions because those answers can help define the Commission's role that we might eventually have to take in the matter. As I said earlier, all my time on the Commission, I've not felt so much like the cart was kind of being put before the horse.

That said, I'm not going to make that motion because I agree with Ms. Witherell that this information being sought by the EDR will be

essential for our future review. I know that the Commission staff, as always, is doing serious and meaningful work behind the scenes, and I don't want to interrupt that process. I know the staff will be thoughtful on these matters, and I have confidence that the Commission will continue to ask the hard questions necessary to build the complete record here that's going to come to us for our final approval.

So I do want to be clear that I remain pretty unconvinced that voluntary compliance is a real substitute for the ordinary review structure. So I really hope that the applicant will work with all the parties, even if it is voluntary, to make it as close to a meaningful Section 106-type review as possible, and I hope that the courts will give us some clarity on this pretty quickly. So thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner Cash. Commissioner Henderson?

MR. HENDERSON: No comments at this time.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you,

Commissioner. Commissioner McGowan?

MS. MCGOWAN: I don't have any additional comments, but thank you, staff, for the presentation. It was very informative.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner McGowan. Commissioner Cozart?

MS. COZART: Yes, I also echo the thanks to staff for the work on this and really appreciate the witnesses coming down. Also, in particular, Ms. Witherell's comments and all the comments that have come in publicly, appreciate folks really weighing in on that. I want to associate myself with the comments of my fellow Commissioner Cash and look forward to the responses to the really excellently written EDR report.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Bruch?

MR. BRUCH: No additional comments. Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Bowron?

MS. BOWRON: Thank you for the

presentation. My inaugural meeting, it is impressive to see the amount of expertise that goes into each of these. And it's particularly helpful to understand the applicant's stated purpose of preserving and enhancing the EEOB's exterior. I'm here today to represent Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, regarding the Commission's review of this project.

I just want to note that we appreciate the applicant's broader goal of preserving and enhancing the building's exterior through cleaning, preservation, repointing, sealant replacement, stone restoration, and painting. I particularly want to note Mr. Erb's commitment to the third-party expert review and testing of painting, and I look forward to learning more

MS. ARGO: I particularly appreciated the comments and the input from the National Trust for

Historic Preservation. You know, this is more significant than I think a lot of folks, including myself, before this meeting. And, you know, our response to this, I think, is significant in terms of how we look to preserve our built heritage. So thank you for letting me be part of this.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

MR. LEVENBACH: I want to thank the people that have presented and also all those who shared their views. I think there are three places where the record can be strengthened a little bit, at least it would stand out in my mind. One is there are points made that this is novel, that granted from this era it hasn't been painted before. I think it would be helpful to look at the French Second Empire-style buildings and masonry of the time and look at that as a reference point to address whether it is indeed first of its kind.

Secondly is just the pain, the testing that's going on, and there are some points made

regarding the inability to perform as it was represented. And so we're definitely interested in those results. And then last, the maintenance costs and also giving some insight into what are the current maintenance costs and how that compares as what they would be. All three of those, I think, if you come back with some additional information, I'd be very interested.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Is Commissioner Blair with us online?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: He is online. Commissioner Blair, can you hear us? While we wait, I do believe Commissioner Dixon is back.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Well, let's go with Commissioner Dixon, and then if James wants to provide comments, he can as well. Commissioner Dixon, can you hear me?

MR. DIXON: Yes, I can. I have no comments. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Okay. Thank you. Is he okay? I missed that, I'm sorry. I expressed

the sense of the Commission and that I hope that

Okay. I'll just proceed. Speaking for myself, first of all, I'd like to thank our staff for their customary diligence in reviewing this project. I think the comments in the report here are well thought out. And the answers to those comments, I think, will be very instructive as we proceed with reviewing this project.

I'd also like to thank the members of the public again, who took the time to come down and testify today or who joined us online. I think this was an informative meeting. And I think I look forward to seeing how this project submission in this project develop in the weeks and months ahead.

At this time, are there any further comments or questions from members of the Commission? Hearing and seeing none, Madam Secretary, could you please confirm the motion and

the second, and take a vote by roll call?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Vice Chairman Levenbach and seconded by Commissioner Ingrassia. Commissioner Cozart?

MS. COZART: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch? MR. BRUCH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bowron? MS. BOWRON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? MS. ARGO: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? MR. LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? MR. BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia? MR. INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon?

Commissioner Dixon?

MR. DIXON: Maybe I'm able to speak.

Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash?

MR. CASH: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson?

MR. HENDERSON: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner McGowan?

MS. MCGOWAN: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. The motion passes.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Madam secretary. With that, we'll move on to agenda item 6B, which is a request to approve preliminary and final site and building plans for -- sorry. A lot of folks, I guess, are not as interested in the Pentagon vehicle gate. Building plans for the Pentagon Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility. From our team, we have Laura Shipman who's going to be presenting today. And Laura, you can proceed whenever you're ready.

MS. SHIPMAN: Good afternoon, Chairman Scharf and Commissioners. Washington Headquarters

Services has submitted preliminary and final site and building plans for a commercial vehicle inspection facility on the Pentagon campus in Arlington, Virginia. Concept plans were reviewed by the Commission on the consent agenda in February of this year, and the comments were supportive of the projects development.

The Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility Project is located off of Columbia Pike and adjacent to the 9/11 Memorial. The 2024 Pentagon reservation master plan update approved by the Commission includes the proposed facility, which plays an important role in security securing the campus. The project will replace the temporary secure access lane remote screening facility to improve operations and overall security for deliveries, and will also replace the mobile temporary public restrooms.

This is a view from the 9/11 Memorial entrance of the existing canopy structure and chain link fencing that will be replaced. And also a view of the existing temporary restroom

trailer for Memorial visitors that will be replaced as well. The proposed site plan includes an inspection canopy structure, reconstructed access roadways, a permanent public restroom facility and construction of security measures, including fences gates, and barrier walls.

The applicant has made several improvements to the site design canopy and facade in response to NCPC and other review agency comments. The previous iteration of the project shown here included a gridded precast concrete veneer panel on the building columns and canopy, which increased the thickness and visibility of the structure. The final design minimizes the canopy structure by removing the veneer from the columns and angling the canopy soffit to a thin edge.

Here's a rendering of the proposed inspection facility. The facade material was changed to metal panel, which better reflects that this is a service facility that should act as a background building to the historic Pentagon

structure. The restroom design has also been improved from the previous iteration shown here with gridded siding. The proposed metal panel construction is similar to the inspection facility.

The restroom circulation has also been improved to ensure elements are not protruding into the sidewalk and users have a clear and separated entry pathway with increased privacy. Landscape features are also used in the site design to decrease the visual impact of the inspection facility to pedestrians and the adjacent memorial. Here is a view from the Memorial looking towards the inspection facility with vegetative screening along the fence line. And here is a view from Washington Boulevard of the inspection facility and the historic Pentagon building beyond.

I will note that the Virginia SHPO concurred with the applicant's finding of no adverse effect on historic properties, and the Commission of Fine Arts had no objection to the

proposal.

In response to public comment on the plant palette, the applicant will replace two proposed plants with common milkweed and little bluestem. They note that some of the other plantings of concern in the comment will be retained for buyer retention purposes and to provide year-round visual separation between the facility and the adjacent memorial while also meeting required security sightlines.

Staff finds the revised plant palette includes species supportive of pollinators and is generally consistent with the NCPC Pollinator Resource Guide, which allows some flexibility to meet project needs. With regard to future planning, an Offsite Pentagon 9/11 Memorial Visitor Education Center is planned on the southern expansion of the Arlington National Cemetery to the west of the Pentagon Reservation.

The Commission reviewed concept plans for the project in 2023 and noted a difficult pedestrian connection along Columbia Pike between

the visitor center and memorial. Staff recommends that as part of the upcoming master plan and future projects, the applicant coordinate with local and federal transportation authorities to improve this connection.

Measures may include vegetative screening between the perimeter fence and sidewalk on Columbia Pike, as well as a landscape buffer between the sidewalk and roadway. Additional wayfinding signage is also recommended to direct visitors to the 9/11 Memorial.

Overall, the proposal is generally consistent with policy set forth in the federal elements of the comprehensive plan and staff recommends the Commission approve the preliminary and final site and building plans, but the comments highlighted in my presentation and listed here. That concludes my presentation. Members of the applicant team are also available virtually to answer any questions from the Commission. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Laura. Do

any commissioners have any questions either for Laura or for the project team at this time? Hearing none, we'll now turn to the public testimony portion of this item. We have one person signed up to speak on this matter today. Mr. Berne, are you with us?

MR. BERNE: Yes, I am. Can you hear me?

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: We can hear you loud and clear, sir. You have three minutes to provide your testimony, and please proceed whenever you're ready.

MR. BERNE: Thank you. This project does not adequately align with recommendations in the NCPC's Pollinator Best Practices Guide. In response to my initial comments, as you just heard, the HNC's representative, Janice Sina of Duberry, sent a message in this shipment that stated that Duberry had added two native plants, common milkweed and little bluestem, to its landscape schedule to replace two plants that I found to be unsatisfactory.

These changes were consistent with

recommendations in the NCPC's guide. However, although there were two plants that were replaced, Duberry did not remove 11 non-native plants and cultivars from its landscape schedules. These may not feed native pollinators, may be invasive, or may be toxic to insects. The NCPC's guides contained recommendations that oppose the installation of these types of projects. Only changing two out of 13 is not enough.

Ms. Duberry wrote that -- Ms. Sina wrote that Duberry had chosen those plants to meet specific project requirements. She wrote that those requirements include safety and security, as well as those for planting the projects by proposed bioretention facilities. Ms. Sina also wrote that all these plants were included in previously approved projects at the Pentagon or to meet a specific visual or security need.

These objections to recommendations in the NCPC's guides do not appear to be reasonable, especially because there are so many. When we were discussing designed landscapes, the guide

cites a federal document that states, choose plants that are best for your ecoregion, preferably native plants to which pollinators are most accustomed. The guide recommends against supplanting and cultivars, stating, quote, prioritize the original native species whenever possible. These are possible in this case.

There are many native plants that have similar characteristics to those that Duberry has selected for this project. Many can provide safety, security, and perceived visual needs. Some are frequently planted in bioretention facilities. The NCPC most likely approved the selected species from other Pentagon projects before it issued its pollinator guide.

Please do not approve this project until Duberry revises its landscape schedule to perform with recommendations in the NCPC's guide. Without such disapprovals, the guide will become useless. Like Duberry, many will give dubious excuses for not conforming with the guide's recommendations. I've said this before to you regarding other

projects before, including the last meeting. Please consider it again now. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Mr. Berne. Are there any questions for our witness here from any members of the Commission? Hearing and seeing none, thank you for your testimony, sir. It's always good to see you. Is there a motion at this time to approve a preliminary and final site and building plans for the Pentagon Commercial Vehicle Inspection Facility?

MR. LEVENBACH: So moved.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman Levenbach. Is there a second?

MR. BRUCH: Yes, I second that motion.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. With that, I'll open it to the Commission for discussion, and I will start deliberations fittingly with Commissioner Bruch.

MR. BRUCH: Number one, thank you very much. And Laura Shipman, thank you very much for your presentation. And I've also got to thank Mr. Berne for his passion for our natural habitat here

on the East Coast. We really appreciate the Commission's support for this project. This is a security access asset of the Pentagon with very high-level traffic and a very underwhelming current status of the security mechanisms, given that it was immediately erected after 9/11 or shortly after that, and has persisted for over two decades.

So we appreciate the Commission's support, a very high density. We do have a K-9 unit that is very active at that site today and will continue to be active. And I think that what we have designed there addresses both the aesthetics of preserving the historical nature of the Pentagon, as well as completely enhances the security of a very high level traffic that comes in there. So thank you for your support.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Bowron?

MS. BOWRON: I just want to acknowledge and appreciate the changes made by the applicant in response to earlier feedback. The design

MS. ARGO: I have no additional questions, but appreciate the work that's been done and in the attention that was paid to earlier comments made by the Commission. Thank you for your work on this.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Vice Chairman Levenbach?

MR. LEVENBACH: I have no comments.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Vice Chairman. Commissioner Blair?

MR. BLAIR: No comments.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Ingrassia?

MR. INGRASSIA: Thank you for the presentation today. I have no further comments.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Dixon?

MR. DIXON: I have no comments.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cash?

MR. CASH: I have no comments. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Henderson?

MR. HENDERSON: No comments. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner McGowan?

MS. MCGOWAN: I don't have any comments, but thank you, staff, for the presentation.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. And Commissioner Cozart?

MS. COZART: I appreciate the staff work on this presentation and this project overall. No additional comments.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Commissioner. Speaking for myself, I just think this is another classic example where engagement with NCPC and moving through our process has resulted in a significantly improved final

product. Anytime you can remove temporary restrooms and temporary structures and replace them with something more permanent, that's a good thing, but we also need to be mindful, obviously, of the surroundings and the built environment.

I support this project. I'd like to thank the applicant team for their work with our team, and I look forward to seeing this project come through to fruition. Are there any further comments or questions at this time? Hearing and seeing none, Madam Secretary, can you please confirm the motion and second, and take the vote by roll call?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes, the motion was made by Vice Chairman Levenbach and seconded by Commissioner Bruch. Commissioner Cozart?

MS. COZART: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch?

MR. BRUCH: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bowron?

MS. BOWRON: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo?

MS. ARGO: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? MR. LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Scharf? CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Blair? MR. BLAIR: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia? MR. INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon?

Commissioner Cash? MR. CASH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson? MR. HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner McGowan? MS. MCGOWAN: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you. The motion

carries.

CHAIRMAN SCHARF: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Are there any further comments or questions at this time before we wrap for the day?

Hearing and seeing none, that concludes our open session agenda. Our next meeting will be on Thursday, June 4th at 1:00 p.m. And if there's no other business to discuss, this meeting is now adjourned.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 2:46 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.

Ahamad Shakil-Azizi