NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

+ + + + +

COMMISSION MEETING

+ + + + +

OPEN SESSION

+ + + + +

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2026

+ + + + +

The meeting convened via Videoconference, at

1:00 p.m. EDT, Mark Paoletta, Chair, presiding.

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:

MARK PAOLETTA, Chair,

Presidential Appointee (At-Large) STUART LEVENBACH, Vice Chair, Mayoral Appointee LINDA ARGO, Mayoral Appointee STEPHEN BRUCH, Department of War 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 ARRINGTON DIXON, Mayoral Appointee DANIEL FALCONE, U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Oversight and Accountability WILLIAM HENDERSON, U.S. Senate Committee on

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs PAUL INGRASSIA, General Services Administration TAMMY STIDHAM, Department of the Interior

NCPC STAFF PRESENT:

DIANE SULLIVAN, Acting Executive Director MATTHEW FLIS, Acting Director, Current Planning

Division MEGHAN HOTTEL-COX, General Counsel & Secretariat LAURA SHIPMAN, Urban Planner LEE WEBB, Historic Preservation Specialist

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Commission Roll Call	4
Report of the Chairman	6
Report of the Executive Director Legislative Update	8	7
Consent Calendar Items	11
Action Items Mayor of the District of Columbia, 400 Oklahoma Avenue, NE, Washington, DC – RFK Campus New Stadium Parking Garages	13
Executive Office of the President Office of Administration 472 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC White House Visitor Screening Facility	147
United States Department of War Department of the Navy Magazine Road, SW, Washington, DC Naval Research Laboratory P-250 Biomolecular Science and Synthetic Biology Laboratory	163
Adjourn

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

(1:00 p.m.) COMMISSION ROLL CALL

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Good afternoon and welcome to the National Capital Planning Commission's October 1, 2026, open session.

First, Secretary Hottel-Cox, can you

please take the roll call? MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. Commissioner Cozart? COMMISSIONER COZART: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch? COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham. COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Paoletta? CHAIR PAOLETTA: Here.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia? COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Present. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: (No audible

response). MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone? COMMISSIONER FALCONE: Here. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Diane Sullivan, acting

executive director, and Matt Flis, current planning division acting director, are also in the meeting.

And with those present, Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum to proceed.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Noting the presence of a quorum, I'd like to call this meeting to order. Today's meeting is live-streamed and will be available in a few days as a video on NCPC's website. If there is no objection, the

agenda as posted is adopted as the order of business.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

ASSEMBLY: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Okay. First, I want to report that pursuant to the commission's delegation to me as chairman and on the advice of staff, I have approved an application from the National Park Service for a transfer of jurisdiction of a portion of Reservation 343F near Barney Circle.

Second, I'd like to thank everyone who came to celebrate Marcel Acosta's illustrious, very illustrious career at NCPC on September 15th. As we acknowledged at last month's meeting, Marcel retired last month after 25

years of federal service, almost 20 of them as NCPC's executive director.

I was delighted to join the more than 80 attendees to thank Marcel for his extraordinary service, including two of my predecessors, former NCPC chairs, Preston Bryant and Beth White. I'd also like to thank NCPC staff who organized and put on such a terrific event on a beautiful D.C. night. We continue to wish Marcel best of luck in his next venture.

Agenda item 3 is the report of the acting director, Diane Sullivan.

And, Diane, welcome to the new job as acting director and executive director, and look forward to working with you.

REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

MS. SULLIVAN: Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Likewise.

I just have two things to report. First, I'm pleased to announce that Matthew Flis, sitting to my left, is serving as the acting director of current planning, and we're

in good hands. He's coming up from the deputy director role in that division.

And the second thing is earlier this month, NCPC, in close coordination with GSA, the National Park Service, and the district, kicked off additional planning for Southwest D.C., and we look forward to bringing that back to this commission as we make some progress on it in the next few months.

And the rest of my updates are in your report that you already have -

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Okay.

MS. SULLIVAN: -- so that concludes my -

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you, Diane.

Do commissioners have any questions or comments for Diane?

Agenda item 4 is a legislative update.

Meghan Hottel-Cox?

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE MS. HOTTEL-COX: I don't have any specific items to update the commission on this

month, but I'm happy to answer questions about pending legislation if there are any.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Any questions for Meghan?

COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes, sir. Actually, this is -- it doesn't quite fit into either the executive director's report or the legislative update, but I think it touched on both of you. I did have a question my boss wanted me to ask.

The Caesar Rodney statue, Freedom Plaza, we approved that as a delegated action, I believe, back in April. And it's my recollection that these temporary installations are only supposed to be permitted for, like, six months.

Do we have any update on when Delaware is getting their statue back or when all those other statues might go away and we get Freedom Plaza back?

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: We are aware of the timeline, and where it goes is a question mark that I can't answer, but we anticipate that

it will be removed when the six months is over.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: It's a beautiful addition to Freedom Plaza. Of course, Caesar Rodney came back from Delaware to help sign the Declaration of Independence, so it's a worthy statue. And I think Vince Haley and his staff were spearheading that effort to put that statue there during the -- our celebration of our 250th anniversary.

COMMISSIONER CASH: No. And I just want to make clear, I'm not criticizing necessarily the statue or any of that. It's just a lot of these kind of memorial projects go through our processes we know most of the time.

So do we know if the count started from when we approved in April? Was it installation or -

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: It's from the time of installation.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Okay.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: And I want to say it was April, but I'm not completely sure of

the exact date that it went into place.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Okay.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: But we're watching the clock.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Thank you.

CONSENT CALENDAR

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Okay. There's one item on this month's consent calendar that is an application from the Department of the Army for approval of a preliminary and final site development plans for the Fort Belvoir new antenna installation.

Are there any questions or discussion on the consent calendar from commissioners? Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar? A second?

COMMISSIONER BRUCH: I second.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Okay. Is there any discussion on this item?

Can the secretary please confirm the motion and the second, and take the vote by roll call?

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

Commissioner Cozart? COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch? COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham? COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Paoletta? CHAIR PAOLETTA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia? COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone?

COMMISSIONER FALCONE: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Motion passes unanimously.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Okay. Thank you. The motion is carried.

We have three items on open session today. Agenda item 6A is a request to approve comments on concept plans for the RFK Campus new stadium parking garages.

Laura Shipman, good afternoon.

MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

400 OKLAHOMA AVENUE, NE,

WASHINGTON, DC – RFK CAMPUS

NEW STADIUM PARKING GARAGES

MS. SHIPMAN: Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Paoletta and commissioners.

The District of Columbia's RFK Stadium Project Management Office, in partnership with the Washington Commanders, has submitted concept plans for two new parking garages at the RFK Stadium Campus.

As a reminder, at the concept review stage, the commission is focused on topics such as general consistency with NCPC policies, appropriateness of the project for the site, and identification of any complex issues.

Additionally, if more than one alternative is under consideration, the commission evaluates if there are meaningful differences or preferences from NCPC's perspective.

Similar to the new stadium review under the National Capital Planning Act, NCPC has advisory review authority for the garages as district projects outside the central area.

The commission previously reviewed the new 65,000 seat stadium project in April of this year and provided recommendations and requests for additional information regarding the proposed parking garages to ensure their appropriateness for the site as a prominent gateway.

The applicant has responded to several

of the commission's requests as part of the current submission, and remaining issues will be highlighted throughout this presentation.

To support the stadium, two parking garages are proposed on opening day. The Garage G1 site is located along Independence Avenue, south of the stadium site near the Hill East redevelopment, and the Garage G2 site is located north of the stadium along the Metrorail viaduct near the Kingman Park neighborhood.

Here are existing conditions photos of the garage sites. Of note, image 2 shows one of the existing pedestrian tunnels that runs under Independence Avenue to the stadium. Images of the Metrorail viaduct as it emerges above ground are also shown to the right.

Before we look at the designs of the garages, I will provide a brief background on the overall master plan for the RFK Campus. In September, the D.C. Office of Planning released the revised master plan for the RFK Campus and transmitted the plan to the D.C. Council. The

campus will be comprised of five districts and the Anacostia Commons, a 30-acre riparian area.

Redevelopment is envisioned to include a mix of uses with approximately five to 65 -5,000 to 6,500 new housing units, the new stadium, a sportsplex, retail, restaurants, hotels, and 30 percent of the campus as parks and open space.

The master plan includes a zoning framework that outlines the maximum allowable height for both garages at 110 feet. Transition zones are designated in the black hatched areas adjacent to lower scale neighborhoods, where building frontages will maintain a height of no more than 60 feet.

At build-out, Garage G1 will be surrounded on three sides by mixed-use development and future development will be constructed between the G2 garage and the Kingman Park neighborhood.

The G2 garage will also sit adjacent to the proposed Oklahoma Park, a 4-acre green space

intended for neighborhood gathering. The plan also includes design guidelines with building articulation strategies, as well as guidance for parking garage design and screening.

Turning to the parking and transportation approach, the master plan aims to prioritize multimodal access to the stadium, including Metrorail, Metro bus, and upgraded pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

The gold line is a proposed bus rapid transit route with center running dedicated lanes connecting the RFK Campus to Union Station. WMATA has also proposed improvements to the Stadium Armory Metrorail Station to better accommodate the anticipated stadium crowds.

During previous reviews of the new stadium, the commission requested more information on the overall parking strategy to understand the need for the number of structured parking spaces proposed on opening day.

The applicant estimates a

transportation mode split of approximately 32,000 Metrorail riders and 8,000 other visitors using non-auto modes. This results in the remaining approximately 25,000 visitors arriving via private vehicle, which generates a parking demand of 8,000 spaces on opening day.

The applicant notes the RFK site is located in a residential neighborhood with high capacity transit and numerous mobility options, but with limited access to shared parking. They indicate that there are no other NFL stadiums located in a comparable setting and with similar transportation alternatives.

Other NFL stadiums are located in residential neighborhoods, but have limited to no transit service, suburban settings with significant dedicated surface parking but with limited access to shared parking, such as Kansas City, or urban settings with high capacity transit and access to shared parking, such as Seattle.

The Kansas City Chiefs Arrowhead

Stadium, shown on the top, provides more than 19,000 dedicated spaces with no third-party parking spaces, and the Seattle Seahawks Lumen Stadium, on the bottom, provides 3,000 dedicated spaces, with 10,000 third-party spaces in existing office garages.

Of the 8,000 parking spaces proposed on opening day, approximately 6,000 will be structured and 2,000 will be existing surface parking. Garage G1 has 2,400 parking spaces, and Garage G2 includes 3,600 spaces.

By opening day, the existing high speed roadway network will be replaced with an urban grid of two-way streets, shown in orange. These will serve game day and non-game day traffic. A supplemental network of streets, shown in blue, will carry the majority of parking garage traffic, reusing many routes that were used for prior stadium and parking access.

In terms of pedestrian circulation, the existing tunnels under C Street and Independence Avenue will be upgraded to provide pedestrian

access between the parking garages and stadium without conflicting with vehicular traffic. Special operations, including road closures, will also be used on event days to prevent conflicts with pedestrians and discourage cut through traffic.

Oklahoma Avenue, which borders the Kingman Park neighborhood, is proposed in the master plan to be realigned with the introduction of a new 22nd Street, which runs along the site of the G2 garage. The realignment will separate local from event day traffic, and a new linear park buffer will also be created between the neighborhood and campus development.

The commission requested the transportation analysis from the National Environmental Policy Act process for the RFK Campus be included with any future parking garage submissions to understand the stadium's potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood street network. The draft NEPA

analysis for the stadium and surrounding redevelopment is anticipated to be released for public comment in 2027.

Therefore, staff recommends the commission request the applicant include the transportation analysis from the NEPA process with the next submission to identify any potential impacts to the local roadway network resulting from the garage's locations and capacity.

We will now move on to the siting and design of the proposed garages. The RFK Campus serves as a gateway to the L'Enfant City, and NCPC has long recognized the area as a significant site identified in the legacy plan, monumental core framework plan, and the agency's 2006 RFK Stadium site redevelopment study.

At 2,400 and 3,600 parking spaces and 110 feet maximum height, the proposed G1 and G2 garages will be substantial in scale and highly visible prior to build out of surrounding mixed-use development. The comprehensive plan's

transportation element encourages parking structure design to be sensitive to the surrounding context.

In line with this guidance at preliminary review of the new stadium, the commission requested that the applicant evaluate alternative orientations and lower heights for the garages to reduce visual impacts.

In response, the applicant submitted alternative locations, orientations, and configurations for the proposed parking garages that were evaluated and dismissed due to inefficiency, infrastructure constraints, impacts to the Kingman Park and Hill East neighborhoods, and pedestrian connectivity concerns, amongst other reasons.

The commission also requested that the applicant evaluate phasing the stadium garages as surrounding surface lots are developed. Phasing options could potentially include adding additional floors at a later date or garage expansion.

While the transportation element recommends parking structures over surface parking, it encourages parking structures to be located below ground in the interest of efficient land use and good urban design.

As such, staff recommends the commission request additional information in the next submission on whether phased garage construction or the provision of additional underground or podium parking levels is feasible to reduce the height and bulk of the proposed garages on opening day.

We will now review the design concepts for Garage G1 located south of the stadium. The proposed G1 parking structure is nine levels. The applicant presented the first design concept for the garage in pre-submission meetings with Federal Review Agency staff.

In response to staff comments to reduce the garage scale and bulk, the applicant provided a second option for commission review. The first option is intended to be a

complementary form to the stadium. The design includes a roof canopy structure, large corner pillars at the stair towers, and exposed columns.

The second option is intended to establish a relationship with future mixed-use to buildings that will be developed in the surrounding area. The facade is broken up with a series of pavilions that are separated by vertical reveals clad in the same decorative perforated metal screen as option one.

Punched openings in the facade similar to windows include decorative spandrel panels to conceal the structure and vehicles. The ground floor plan for both options are largely similar with a floor plate that is 444 feet in length along Independence Avenue by 240 feet in depth.

Pedestrians enter the garage from Independence Avenue or from a pathway at a lower level, which connects the garage to the tunnel leading to the stadium.

There is one vehicular entry to the

garage from Independence Avenue and two at the rear of the structure at a lower level due to the slope of the site. At build out of the Riverfront District, the garage's lower level is planned to be surrounded by a large podium of parking.

The roof plan for option 1 includes a canopy structure and raised green roof with solar panels. The cladding is perforated metal screen with an abstract pattern reflecting the wild rice native to the Anacostia River landscape.

The proposed option 1 design has elements of visual lightness with the facade screen treatment and slender perimeter columns. However, the roof canopy and large corner pillars act to increase the perceived scale of the structure.

Here is a rendered view of option 1 from the Whitney Young Memorial Bridge, and aerial views on day 1 where the garage is freestanding on the left and at build-out

surrounded by development on the right.

Now, taking a look at option 2. While the architecture of the future surrounding development has not been established, the design of option 2 reflects the master plan design guidelines for surrounding future mixed-use development.

This guidance recommends vertical facade articulation, such as recesses or projections that break down the scale and create depth and relief along the building facade.

Option 2 also removes the roof canopy and the step-back raised green roof is less visible from the sidewalk, creating a lower perceived height of the building similar to the step-backs that are recommended for mixed-use development in the master plan.

Here is a rendered view of option 2 from the bridge, and aerial views of option 2 on day 1 and at build-out. This view shows the pedestrian pathway leading from the garage lower level to the tunnel under Independence Avenue.

That is similar in both options.

Considering the elements of each option that work well in this site context, staff recommends the applicant consider advancing an option that combines the modulation of the facade and massing of option 2 with the lightness of the screening and detailing of option 1.

The comprehensive plan urban design element notes development should enhance the pedestrian experience and reinforce the human scale along special streets, including Independence Avenue.

As Garage G1 is developed, staff recommends continued articulation of the ground level facade treatment and enhanced streetscape elements along Independence Avenue to improve pedestrian functionality and comfort.

Now, we will take a look at the design of Garage G2, north of the stadium. The proposed G2 parking structure is eight levels, and 780 feet in length along the new 22nd Street

by 248 feet in depth.

The garage site is located along the WMATA viaduct, and vehicular entries to the garage are on the other three sides of the building at the first level, with a vehicular bridge connecting from C Street to the second level.

The garage structure is designed to reflect the scale of its primary exposures, including the Kingman Park neighborhood to the north and the stadium, the fields, and long views from the Whitney Young Memorial Bridge to the south.

As noted in the master plan, residents expressed a desire for new construction that uses building breaks, projections, and recesses to break down scale. The 22nd Street facade includes this articulation with a rhythm of pavilions along the facade and an overall height of about 90 feet to the upper level parapet.

The southeast facade of the garage will still be visible after full build -- build-out

of the campus. A pedestrian bridge running the length of the garage above the viaduct provides circulation and gathering space with views to the fields and the Anacostia River.

The design of this long facade is also modulated with larger frames that reach above the upper level parapet on the 22nd Street side to a height of approximately 100 feet.

It appears this height could be lowered without impacting the number of parking spaces, and staff recommends the applicant consider reducing the height of the southeast facade to decrease the perceived scale of the garage structure and continue to refine the scale of the facade design details throughout the building.

Here is a view of the garage from the fields, a view from the adjacent Kingman Park neighborhood on day 1, and the same view with future development. This is a rendered view from the bridge, and aerial views on day 1, and at build-out.

The southwest facade facing C Street serves as a primary entry point for pedestrians connecting to and from the stadium. Additional information is needed regarding other pedestrian access points and how visitors walk to and around the large structure.

As such, staff recommends the commission request the applicant provide additional information and views of the pathway to the tunnel under C Street leading to the stadium, pedestrian entries and circulation around the garage building, and the planned wayfinding strategy in the next submission.

The comprehensive plan's transportation element encourages parking structure design to integrate other uses where possible. And at preliminary review of the new stadium, the commission requested that the applicant consider active uses lining the ground floors to improve the pedestrian experience and create opportunities for community-serving uses.

The applicant responded in their

submission that retail uses are prohibited under the parking garage lease. However, the ground floors of each garage and the surrounding public spaces are designed to host temporary events, such as farmers' markets, bicycle meetups, food festivals, and movie screenings. A bike valet is also proposed at the ground floor of the G2 garage adjacent to the future Oklahoma Park.

If carefully designed and managed, the ground floor design elements and programming could help add interest to what would otherwise be a long and inactive public realm around the building. Staff recommends the applicant further develop these elements as well as any additional opportunities for ground floor active uses as part of the next submission.

Finally, we take a look at the proposed landscape design for the garage sites. The primary landscape improvements at the G1 garage site are proposed along Independence Avenue within the right of way and are currently in the design process.

The G2 streetscapes are also under development, though one feature to note is the driveway entry on the northeast of the garage adjacent to the current green space and future park. This flexible space is designed as a larger plaza for community uses, such as farmers' markets and other gatherings.

With the next submission, staff recommends the commission request more detailed landscape plans for the garages. And as the site and building designs are developed, staff recommends the commission request the applicant continue to coordinate with NPS regarding pedestrian and bicycle connections and transitions to the broader Anacostia Park system.

And with that, staff recommends the commission approve the comments on concept plans for the two new parking garage structures at the RFK Stadium Campus noted throughout the presentation and listed on the following slides.

That concludes my presentation.

Representatives from the district, the Commanders, and the design team are also available to answer any questions from the commission. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Sir? Mr. Dixon?

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: I just had two questions. One, what are the particular drivers that are forcing the locations that were chosen for the parking garages?

MS. SHIPMAN: If a member of the applicant team is available to respond.

MR. STUCKER: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Gilles Stucker. I'm with the RFK PMO office. Pleasure to be here. In terms of the location of the garages, I think the main question we received from the community is the location of the G2 garage near the Kingman Commons location. And the reason why the -- it's in that location is for multiple reasons. The G2 garage is larger because its location is only -- the only place on the campus where multiple constraints align without

compromising pedestrian connectivity, existing recreation amenities, or essential infrastructure.

The new north-south street connecting Benning Road to C Street must sit between the Metro tunnel and Oklahoma Avenue to preserve the existing C Street underpass and also avoid pushing stadium traffic into Kingman Park. The placement defines the footprint for G2 along the Metro tunnel wall where a larger garage can be built without creating new pedestrian barriers, while also allowing us to remove more surface parking over time. And because it's -- of its direct connections to C Street, Benning Road via the new north-south street and the access road towards Barney Circle, G2 can clear the campus more efficiently into 295 and 695, helping keep traffic off local streets.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: So I have a few more. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Yeah, Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: So on day one, the stadium will be there, the parking garages will be there. So I've noticed you've only landscaped -- for instance, on G1 you're only showing a landscape on the -- sort of the north side. Do you anticipate doing a landscape completely for that area as part of the, like, day one opening instead of just along this northern section?

MR. STUCKER: What we're showing is the landscape plan most near the garages. There's a whole set of determinations for the Kingman Commons area and the recreation district in terms of how those areas will progress through design development for landscaping plans. So we're happy to come back to the commission with a greater sense of the landscaping for preliminary review, if that would make sense.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Okay. It's just -- trying to understand. It may be a while before that future development takes place, so

the landscaping on just that northern side doesn't make a lot of sense to me because you have -- you know, it'll be 360 and there be views to consider. So consider, you know, what an interim landscaping plan might look like for both garages while you're waiting for the other future development to come into play.

MR. STUCKER: Understood. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: So one more. These are pretty big structures. Were there considerations for putting some of this below grade?

MR. STUCKER: Yeah. It's very challenging. There's many considerations for placement of the garages and being below grade. We have the WMATA infrastructure.

And if you can -- Laura, if it's possible to go back to the image of the G2 garage, the bird's eye view, if that's possible, it might be helpful to see that. Keep going back. It's an overview that shows the shape of the G2 garage. I'll speak to it as you're -- if

it's possible. The G2 garage, initially, we had as a rectangle, right? Yes. Yes.

And you see where it's on the left where it says Plaza where the red staircase is? That plaza is there because there's WMATA infrastructure supporting the metro viaduct. So we have to pull that back in order to allow for the garage to be where it is. So that's one consideration. We also have a major infrastructure through the Kingman Commons neighborhood. We also have another major viaduct through the campus. So really, this is the only place where you could make it work. And if you go below grade, we're also at the water table as well, so you have that consideration as well. So -- and also the increasing cost for that. And so our goal is to ensure that we can deliver the parking garages for day one for stadium opening.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Okay, great. As far as operations, I mean, I know these will serve the stadium and any events going on there.

So what is the day-to-day use? Is this a -will these parking garages be available to the community, to other things in the -- within the development outside of events and uses of the stadium?

MR. STUCKER: Yes.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: All right. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Welcome.

Okay. Mr. Dixon?

COMMISSIONER DIXON: (inaudible) actually, as a follow-on to your questions.

Is there a way to connect the Metro to this parking lot so that it could be used as a parking facility for Metro and community parking and a lot of other things when it's not being used for maybe even doing events at the stadium?

MR. STUCKER: There's a whole operational strategy that's being formed now -

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yeah.

MR. STUCKER: -- in terms of use. We're focusing on the stadium operations -

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yeah.

MR. STUCKER: -- from day one, but there's -- we're in close coordination with WMATA -

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Good.

MR. STUCKER: -- because of the work at the Stadium-Armory Metro Station at the -

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Right.

MR. STUCKER: -- gold line, which was presented. So that coordination will likely resolve -- result in using, you know, shared uses and, you know, how the public could get on the Metro via the parking garages.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yeah, that'd be great. I mean, if they connect, then the community could use it and others could use it and make it more functional all the time. So thank you for that information. This last question is this. We need to look at exploring boat access, some kind of a docking facility, I think, near this, because there could be use of boats. Some -- it could be a business where

folks could actually, you know, be ferried there from other parts of the neighborhood, from the river to the game. So I think it could be -it'd be a little cold sometime, but during -when it's warmer in events, it could be real interesting to see small boats, small vendors bringing people in and -- on boats and walking up to it. So that's parking, that's Metro, that's a lot of stuff.

MR. STUCKER: Commissioner, to the point, in terms of access to the Anacostia side, we've worked very closely with our Department of Energy and Environment to coordinate the development of our RFK with improvements to Kingman and Heritage Islands. So we're trying -- we're really actively -- and also the federal legislation requires -

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.

MR. STUCKER: -- we provide better access to Anacostia.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes.

MR. STUCKER: So we're taking that to

heart and really using that as an -

COMMISSIONER DIXON: So -

MR. STUCKER: -- opportunity to have a more holistic view of RFK in the context of the -- this area of the city.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. I understand it's a broader discussion and I appreciate it, but I'm -- specifically a launching or someplace for some boats to be able to dock and come in and be released to go play -- go to the games. And Kingsman (sic) Park is very important to me. I think they ought to make that like Woods Hole in Massachusetts for river research. Our river was one of the top five endangered rivers in the country and now we are doing -- almost ready to swim. I think we could do a lot to train people, kids and others, on that park, but that (inaudible), I think.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Commissioner Levenbach?

VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: So I have two questions. One is it's a beautiful stadium, and I don't just say that because it's the only one

I've had a chance to vote in favor of, but I'm curious. What views of the stadium are you trying to preserve? And I'm particularly interested in the Memorial Bridge perspective. So your rendering shows a little bit of impingement, but then the garage gets wrapped by development. So tell me a little bit about this and kind of what you -- what your thought process is in trying to preserve this view.

MR. STUCKER: So if you see the garage here, it's to the side. It's, you know, in a location within the riverfront district. And I'll ask Matt Bell perhaps to come up and talk more about the context, but the garage itself is in a location where it's 110 feet. It's not the 130 feet. It's outside of the main view of the stadium, which you can see here. And also with the master plan being recently published, there's step-downs as to that edge to preserve the view of the stadium in the ultimate build out.

MR. BELL: Good afternoon. Matt Bell

with Perkins Eastman. We're urban design consultants to the commanders. That's a good question. One of the things that's important to remember about this site is how big it is. It's big, you know. And so this only shows the garage there. I think there is either an aerial view or something that shows it when the development comes, which I think is your concern. That's one of them. One of the things we took into consideration is if you look to the right, you -- well, you will have a view coming across the Whitney Young Bridge directly on access with the stadium, right. And on the other side, coming from the west, you will have, again, the large green area, the armory on the right, and new development on the left. What is important to remember here is what this plan does is it preserves those fields. So the view of the stadium will actually be very, very visible to that side there, which I think will be really great because it'll engage the stadium with these wonderful fields that the mayor put

in there and are very, very much treasured by the community and very much open the stadium to that view.

So we felt that framing it a little closer coming across the Whitney Young Bridge was fine because you're still going to see this axial view of the stadium. It's not getting in the way of the axis there. And in fact, the stadium and the site is so big that you can have different conditions around it. It's not the sort of thing where everything around it's going to be the same. This is a very large site. So we felt that actually the stadium has a certain -- very clearly a monumental presence that relates west, it relates east, and we felt that we could have a variety of different conditions around it. One, a landscape condition where the fields are. We have the Plaza District neighborhoods up by the Metro Station and the armory, we have the neighborhoods to the north leading over to Kingman Park, and then we have the riverfront

district. So we felt that it could be rather unique to have these different conditions around the stadium. I hope that answers your question.

VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: It does. Okay. I got one more.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Yeah.

VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Okay. So I saw some of the comments that came in about Garage 2 and the -- and how you try to preserve access to it without interfering with the King (sic) Park community and their access, particularly on game day. But when I looked at that layout, it looks like there could be a lot of spillover traffic nonetheless to that residential street. How are you going to keep event day traffic from spilling into the residential street and making it really hard for people in that community to just go about their day?

MR. BELL: Yeah, that -- that's a good question. We worked really hard on this. One quick answer is it'll be managed so that people probably can't be -- won't be able to go in from

that street, but what we did was -- and maybe it's not as clear to see here, but we did introduce a new street, a new north-south street. And what this north-south street does is it siphons stadium traffic, you know, from Benning Road onto it. And then we included a small residential street in front of that and a green space so that the residents of Kingman Park will be able to move around without having to engage stadium traffic on this new north-south street.

It will be a management issue to make sure traffic doesn't go in to the -- to those neighbors -- neighborhoods from the new street there and that's something important to be worked out in the future about how that happens, but we've been very cognizant of the fact that we needed a network that would allow for stadium and event traffic to have its way in and out without adversely impacting the residential areas. And I will say, one of the things that I think this plan does, which I think will be a

daily improvement for the area, not just something for events, is it will introduce a better grid in this area that enhances mobility. Right now, it's -- there are very limited choices of movement through there because of the parking lots and various things. So we think by having more connectivity there, particularly when there's not an event, it'll make the area easy for residents to move around in.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Commissioner Ingrassia?

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes, sir.

Just very -- thank you for the presentation. This is related somewhat to the previous question raised, but maybe if you could speak a little bit more about navigating foot traffic between the parking garages and the stadium itself. I know there's a tunnel brought up in one of the slides. I'm wondering if you've considered also, like, bridges, pedestrian bridges to help navigate some of the more busy intersections in that area?

MR. BELL: We -- the first thing we

tried to do was to use what's there. And the tunnels were both very useful in terms of getting pedestrians into the stadium core, but remember, they separate the grade. So Independence and C are up here and those tunnels are down here. So what that allows us to do is allows for people to come in and park in the garages and not have to cross those streets, because those streets will remain open during events. So that's an important consideration. And we think that they're going to work that way. There will be obviously some intersections where people will cross and there'll be stoplights and managed pedestrian crossings there, but the large preponderance of people will be using those tunnels. And we think they were a great thing to retain and they have a kind of -- you know, historic kind of memory of people who came to the stadium when RFK Stadium was there about the tunnels and a lot of people spoke to us about that. I will say one thing about the bridges. We have found, in our

experience of it, and Gorove Slade as well, who's our transportation consultant, that overhead bridges don't work as well. People tend not to use them and they become kind of eyesores at one level, you know. So we tried to avoid that, quite honestly.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: More questions?

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Mr. Chairman, I was going to just comment that looking at the complex, the sports complex, which is at the other end, I remember when that was a dirt field and we went to carnivals there and it was a long time ago, but also it's pretty close to Langston Golf Course.

MR. BELL: That's correct.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: And it seems to me there may be some connect at some point. Maybe as a city, we can think about it and talk about it, whether this can spill over into Langston, which is a part of a sports complex.

MR. BELL: That -- you -- you're right. We did talk about that and its relationship to

the golf course and other things there. That's one of the many reasons why we felt that was the best place for the sportsplex.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Just one followup question on the view from the Whitney Young Bridge. I had noticed also that the parking garage was infringing on just the edge of that axial view, but I don't recall seeing a similar view that included the development, which I would perceive that it would even infringe on that view even more. Was there consideration or is there consideration to pull that back some? You have a -- I mean, you're framing it so nicely because of the recreational fields on the right-hand side, but on the left-hand side, you have the development starting to infringe in on that view, which just seems to complicate -- I mean, it's such a gorgeous structure and such an important view to have development infringing onto it. Just doesn't make a lot of sense.

MR. BELL: A fair comment. I think a little nipping and tucking could be under

consideration there. You know, I think that's a fair comment. Yeah. Sure. We can take a look at that.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Sure. Okay. I have a few questions. So for everyone that wasn't lucky enough to sit through an eight-hour presentation on the master plan yesterday, like I did with my boss, this just feels like continuation, but I have a few follow-up questions from that. So first of all, if you could go back to the last slide, I think it was labeled 9, that has kind of like the overall site plan that showed the -- yeah. Has there been any consideration to moving G2 up against the sportsplex and moving the park down into the center of the Commons, which is going to be residential and people? Because right now, you have a garage that's -- everyone in the neighborhood's complaining about is going to be in the center of the neighborhood when you have an opportunity to maybe move it up north, be adjacent to the sportsplex for parking, make it

so people don't have to drive as far into the campus on game days. So maybe if you just talk about what consideration was given to putting G2 farther to the north.

MR. BELL: I think there's a slide about the G2 options there and I -- if you could put that up, I could speak to that. This was studied fairly aggressively. Yeah.

COMMISSIONER CASH: It's a (inaudible). Yeah.

MR. BELL: Okay. So this is a little bit of a -- not every study we did, but this is a sequence of the studies -- some of the studies that we did. First thing we looked at in the upper left was maybe put parking on the field side. And of course, then we came to realize that the fields obviously are a very important part of the neighborhood, and that was a no go. The upper right, we originally started with two decks, with one over there towards where the sportsplex is shown there, and we felt that that closed the neighborhood too off -- too much off

from the riverfront. Now, one thing that's important to remember is that -- see where the end of the upper purple garage is that's labeled G2, not G3? You see where the end of it is on the bottom of the slide? There is the Metro viaduct and a concrete wall that runs along that length and it ends just about where that corner is at G2 right there.

You cannot see or traverse that. That is a block. It's a wall. It's there. It's part of the Metro infrastructure. So one of the reasons why we felt the G2 garage was appropriate there was because it was not -would not be polluting a view that already existed. And remember too, that the viaduct goes up in the air and then it's on columns. So you can see under those columns out to the waterfront once you get beyond that corner. So it was felt that -- so, you know, we did a couple of other versions there. The bottom left one, you can see we looked at straddling the metro viaduct, but the problem there is it

blocked the service entrance, the service tunnel into the stadium. And also it made it -- we have to have a staging area for trucks to go through that service zone there to get into the stadium district. They have to be checked for security and things.

So that area, when we go back to the master plan, I'll be able to point that out. But we felt we ruled out straddling the garage also because the -- there is a Metro, Pepco piece of infrastructure on that corner where the plaza into that garage is that you cannot build over top of. So we felt that having the garage where we located it, framed with the sportsplex, made it easy for people to walk into the stadium from that garage. And, you know, as I said before, the site is deceptively large. Oklahoma Park there is easily as big as Stanton Park on Capitol Hill, maybe as big as Lincoln Park as well. I can't remember the exact dimensions of it. So that is a very big space. So you know, it's deceptive because it seems small in this

drawing, but it is something that you'll be able to see through and experience as a very large green space that connects that neighborhood to the waterfront.

COMMISSIONER CASH: What I heard from all of that was G2 is going to be closer to the stadium. Sorry, but that's kind of what I heard. Oklahoma Park seems like -- is there any infrastructure under any of that square that's Oklahoma Park?

MR. BELL: I don't think so, actually.

COMMISSIONER CASH: So -

MR. BELL: I can look, so -

COMMISSIONER CASH: And if the problem is that this G2 garage won't fit there, because obviously it's a little bit bigger, then I think it gets to another point that a lot of people have advocated for is swapping the G1 and the G2. G2 is in an existing neighborhood that's been there for probably a hundred years. G1 is in a parking lot right now. I think you'd have a lot less resistance to a bigger G1, a smaller

G2. Right now, you're encouraging people to come onto Benning Road, drive into the neighborhood in order to park in a garage. So I feel like there's so many other configurations that just feel so much more natural. A smaller G1 that's farther to the north and making G2 bigger. You could -- even moving G2 somehow farther up and putting -- I think having a park in the middle of this new neighborhood as opposed to adjacent to a sportsplex in, like, one block of the current Kingman Park neighborhood, it's -- I feel like G2 is here because it's closer to the stadium. I -- that's just the feeling I have and it's going to encourage people to come onto Benning Road instead of using the Whitney Young Bridge. It -- the placement just feels off. But so maybe it was more of a comment. You've answered my question there.

MR. BELL: Can I speak to G1 for you?

COMMISSIONER CASH: Yeah. Yeah, please. (inaudible) the swap idea. Yeah.

MR. BELL: Yeah. Let me just say one other thing about G2. I think it's important to recall that much of what's labeled Oklahoma Park is asphalt now. And what that plan does is it brings the green space closer to Kingman Park, which I think is an asset. Brings it closer to -

COMMISSIONER CASH: The green space under a Metro viaduct -

MR. BELL: Only part of it's under the Metro viaduct. The large preponderance of it is not.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Yeah. And I'm glad that you actually reminded me of that. So you mentioned that this configuration will leave more views open to the river, but it will be views under a Metro viaduct. I would -

MR. BELL: That thing's pretty far up in the air.

COMMISSIONER CASH: But if you put the -

MR. BELL: You can see pretty good

underneath it.

COMMISSIONER CASH: -- if you put the garage farther to the north, then you'd have an unobstructed view of the river without any viaduct from -

MR. BELL: No, the viaduct would still be there.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Well, no. It goes underground when you get -- doesn't -- so right now, the current spot that you have the parking garage in, by the time you get to the end of it close to the stadium, it's completely underground. So if you move -

MR. BELL: That -- that's not true, actually. That's a concrete wall from the -what I was trying to say earlier, I'm sorry I wasn't very articulate about it. From where that gray tower is back to C Street is a concrete wall.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Right. But I'm just looking at even this image. If you go to the far end of it, you have a less obstructive

view over an underground -- I mean, there's a

wall there, granted, but -

MR. BELL: At grade, it's obstructed.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Okay. Well, let me go on -- let me go onto my next slide. Underground, putting more of this underground. I've heard there's a high water table. I know a lot of this is old infill. I know there's a lot of dirtiness under the site that we're really nervous to dig down because when we find stuff, that just makes it all more expensive, but that doesn't change the fact we could sink a lot more of this underground, which could get you a few things. At the current height, it can get you more space in this garage to maybe shrink the footprint a little bit. So actually, because we didn't get the chance to ask this yesterday, can you talk a little bit about why we can't go underground? I understand there's water table. I understand we're next to a river. I also understand that we have Harbor Place in Georgetown that's right next to a river that

goes like five or ten -- it goes quite a ways underground. So can you talk to me a little bit about why this parking garage or the other one can't go underground some more?

MR. BELL: Well, obviously there were budgetary issues about how much budget we had to be able to build these garages. So that's one thing. And you all probably know that when you go underground with things, the price of things goes very, very significantly higher. So that's -- and I don't know if anybody else wants -- the team wants to speak to that, but let me just mention about G1. If we could go back to -- there's a slide about the options for G1 there. One of the things that was very important to the district and also to the Commanders was to bring the city to the water. I don't know how many of you have walked around down there, but the city and also the Park Service has done a really outstanding job remaking that park landscape, that green landscape, particularly on the north side of the

Whitney Young Bridge. There's some very, very nice new wetlands that have been created there and things.

So one of our tasks was to figure out how to bring the city to the water and to bring it in a way that had a kind of -- more kind of immediate impact and also bring, with the stadium, new development, new housing opportunities, new jobs, and things like that. We felt that the riverfront district was the best candidate for that in terms of larger buildings. Now, I will say that the G1 garage on the north side, there is new development that screens the garage from the existing neighborhood. So that was an important component, too. We do have new development screening. It's not right up against existing buildings, there is a fair amount of development there. Let me speak to this for a second. These are some alternatives we studied. You may know that there is a new development happening on the old D.C. General Hospital site, which is

called Hill East. Some of that has been built. There are currently development plans underway to build that out. And so one of the things we were asked to consider was the location of a garage there that would not have an adverse impact on ongoing development plans for the Hill East neighborhood. So in the purple one on the upper right and the one on the bottom left, when we looked at these locations, it was felt strongly that those locations had an adverse impact on that development.

The -- you know, and you mentioned would it be possible to have the size of a garage of G2 in the location where G1 is? From a -- just a basic site point of view and geometry point of view, it would make any kind of associated development there very difficult. So what we decided to do was to propose early on G1 to be a garage to be built with two levels of deck to come later, which raises the development -- potential development area out of the floodplain and would allow us to have two

levels of parking below that in the deck, one for events and the other for any kind of private development that would occur there. So we felt this achieved a number of things. So where we ended up with something closer to what you see in the bottom right, which is a parking deck that would be surrounded by development to make any kind of adverse impact of the deck, minimize that, but also to have enough room so we could build a mixed use neighborhood that brought the city, like the wharf and like the yards, to the water. And this is -- what I think this achieves with this deck, being able to not only raise the development levels so it's out of the floodplain, get us a parking deck there, but have enough development to create a new neighborhood in that location.

COMMISSIONER CASH: So I'm going to push back a little bit because I understand bringing the neighborhood to the water, but we already have an established neighborhood and it's called Kingman Park and you're putting a -

the biggest parking deck in the history of Washington D.C. in between that neighborhood and the water. So if that's really the north star, I would just urge you to see if there's ways to mitigate the impacts in the Kingman Park neighborhood. I appreciate the Reservation 13 that's been ongoing now for what, ten, 15 years? That'll probably take another ten, 15 years to reach the water. That's great. But this G1 garage is going to be put in place by the -- by 2030 and we can't move it. So yeah, I -- I'm just really pushing the team to look at if there's any way to go underground, which could make G1 the same footprint, have more spaces, and reduce the G2 size, because that G2 size is just really big. So -- but as long as the garages are where they are, maybe I have a few questions too, just to talk about how we can make them a little less bad.

So first off, I do -- I've given a lot of thorns, but I want to give a rose. I think that option one, throw it out, those giant

tapestries, that's ridiculous. I don't think -I don't see how it looks at all like the stadium. I don't see anything but -- I mean, it looks like an ugly version of, like, an arena because there -- there's just -- it's just flat. So I -- but I love G2. I love the option 2. It breaks it up. It makes it look like buildings. It actually -- it -- these could be apartments unless you really didn't look close enough to see there's cars parked in there. So I think this is a much better way to at least break it up. But the problem we still have is while it looks like apartments, it's just a long line of nothing but parking because there's apparently, according to the staff -- or according to the staff report, and I'll quote it, not exactly, but the lease prohibits any retail. So maybe this is a question more for the PMO team, and we asked this yesterday and I know I have some get-backs on my -- on the other side of my -getting this back. But can any -- can the staff maybe speak to what you've been told by the

project team about this lease and the retail prohibition in the parking garages on the ground floor?

MS. SHIPMAN: Yeah. So in the submission, in response to the question about whether or not active retail or commercial uses are permitted in the ground floor, the team wrote that the parking garage leases prohibit those uses in the ground floor of the garages.

COMMISSIONER CASH: So -

MS. SHIPMAN: And that's in the -section 9 of the submission.

COMMISSIONER CASH: So can I ask someone from the team to come up and, number one, tell me, is that true that it's prohibited in the lease? Number two, is there actually a lease in place or is this a prohibition on the future lease? So maybe let's start there.

MR. STUCKER: Commissioners, I'll start with -- and I'll ask Andy to come up as well afterwards. So we are negotiating leases now. Retail is possible in the leases, so we will

study it. The community has expressed an interest in it, so we will do that. I think a couple points of interest is, first, it's the type of money that was associated with the parking garages that prohibits the uses like that. But also, I think one of the things that's very important at -- what the Office of Planning has done with the master plan is they've shown the active storefront areas across the campus. Those active storefronts are primarily in the Plaza District. They're also south and east of the G1 garage. To truly promote those active storefronts in areas that are going to have a lot of economic activity so we ensure that whatever storefronts are created are open and not vacant. So that's -- so we will -- to answer your question, yes, we will study it.

But also, Andy, if you have anything else you want to add? No?

COMMISSIONER CASH: Well, I -- I'm all for active storefronts. Unfortunately, those

won't be there until 2038 and this will be here in 2030 and we'll have nothing but garages with no ground floor activation and a stadium. So I'd really urge you to -- as these leases are being finalized, negotiated, whatever you want to call it, to see what flexibility you can have. And I will say, so I mean, the money for -- as a reminder, these garages are some of the actual district assets. The district is -and Events DC are putting up the money for these garages. So I want to make sure that the district isn't value engineering ourselves into being the worst part of this project. But that said, the Events DC angle did make me go back and think of something that at the time I was very critical of, which was the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, the street activation that happened on 7th and 9th Street a few years ago. There was -- for anyone that's ever been along 7th or 9th Street back before they made the improvements, it was a long line of just flat, unactivated space like this. And

they went through and they actually took these little parts of the facade, which are, like, maybe 25-foot wide boxes, and they put little boxes that extended into the convention center itself.

And they're not true retail, they're kind of these pop-up shops. They're meant as, like, short-term things. I think there's a tailor in there. There's a couple coffee shops. But maybe that's a use that isn't full-fledged retail. We're not going to have kitchens built out or anything like that. But if you just have, like, some pop-up shops, a la what they did at the convention center, to have that activation in 2030 when game days are opened up and you can have, like, people selling their hats and stuff instead of out in the cold in the winter, you can have someone doing a pop-up shop and it will create activation on both G1 and G2. So in keeping with the idea of me mentioning I like this design a lot better because it looks just more like it's in tune with the

neighborhood and not just a big flat wall, I think you could do even better if you could get some kind of retail in there. Even if it's not, like, true retail, we don't have, like, a big restaurant with a kitchen and all the back of the house, but little 25-by-25 squares that take up a couple of parking places out of the mix.

Not competing with the eventual retail that'll come in, but it will give something at the ground level because one of the things that was brought up over and over yesterday is the parking garages at Nats Park that we were kind of forced to build, if you've been on that street on a game day, it's nothing but bollards at either end, no activation, a line of cars, and a couple of businesses that have tried to open up across the street, but no one wants to sit out looking -- drinking a beer while people are parking. So this is a very important part and because these garages are so big, getting it right at the front end is really important. Otherwise, I feel like we're going to be back

here in 2032, everyone complaining that there's nothing here but parking garages. So given these are the district's assets, given that we've heard from the community, these are their asks, I would just really urge the team to go back and look at if we can underground any of it for the price, if we can get some kind of activation. I really appreciate what OP did with all the activation outside, but just bring that in a little bit and get some more permanence there and looking at anything we can do just to address the community's concerns.

But I really think you should look at moving G2 up to the north because it gets out of the neighborhood and that little cut-through street that you all showed, I just know that there's going to be a new way to cut from -- or from Benning down this new road to C Street and it's going to become a nuisance in the neighborhood all the time. But if we can get that garage closer to Benning, people don't have to come down in. We don't have to make the

roads as wide. So sorry. There's been a lot there. It's nothing that didn't come up yesterday, so I'm kind of reiterating, but yeah, digging down, rightsizing it, getting retail there. I think if you could address these things, that the next time these development plans come back to us, you'll hear a lot less pushback from the community, which will make all of our jobs easier because the goal is to get this thing open on time and to get it moving. Sorry. One more question for staff, just because this came up yesterday. There was a lot of talk about any changes to any of this, parking, electricity, and all that, which isn't in the mix here, that it would have to come back to NCPC and that could delay possibly the 2030 opening. So maybe if staff could talk a little bit about, like, if the team decided in two weeks that they want to move G2 to where G3 used to be and had to come back to the commission, is that going to cause a year-long delay, or can we move this through as fast as a ballroom or

something?

MS. SHIPMAN: Well, right now we are at the concept phase of review. Right now, the plan is to come back for preliminary in 2027. So there's time for changes to happen before the garages come back for review.

COMMISSIONER CASH: But the next anything here at the commission isn't probably until later in 2027?

MS. SHIPMAN: I'll also ask the team, but that -- that's what was submitted.

MR. STUCKER: Early '27, yes.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Oh, that -- that's helpful. And I -- I'd urge you all to use that time to go back and look at some of the issues I've raised and the community has raised.

MR. STUCKER: And thank you for the comments about the convention center. We'll study that further. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you. Any more questions, comments from the commissioners? Great. Thanks.

Thanks, Laura. Good job.

I will now turn to public testimony. We will have 15 people signed up on this matter today. Therefore, we will ask testimony from witnesses in groups of five. Our first witnesses will be Bernard Berne, Ebony Payne, Tamika Middleton, Tracy Sahay, and Amy McMahon.

So Bernard Berne, you will have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready.

I think he's -- yeah.

MR. BERNE: Can you hear me now?

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Yes.

MR. BERNE: Thank you. Now, I'm talking about the plant palette as I usually do at these meetings. The plant palette for this project does not align with several recommendations in your Pollinator Best Practice Guide. Your guide states that common milkweed, Asclepias syriaca, is an important species that is critical to the survival of monarch butterflies. The guide further states that

common milkweed should be planted on federal landscape plans to the fullest extent possible and as appropriate for site conditions. However, the palette does not contain any milkweed. Please therefore ask the applicant to add common milkweed to the pallet. This comes up at almost every one of your site plans. The guide recommends a focus on native perennials that provide foliage of -- forage for pollinators and beneficial insects and larval food plants or butterflies and moths. However, the plant -- the palette contains seven species that are not native to the National Capital Region.

One is not native to North America. Some may become invasive, if they're not now. Please therefore ask the applicant to replace all seven non-natives with native plants whose characteristics are similar to those of the nonnatives. Those characteristics includes height, spread, flower and leaf color, and suitability for the local environment, among others. The

guide notes that plant cultivars are selected for treats -- for traits attractive to humans, but not to pollinators. The guide states, therefore, prioritize the original native species whenever possible.

Some cultivars have modified structures that prevent pollinators from reaching their vector, if they have any. Some bred for foliage color are toxic to insects. Some bred for increased vigor can establish quickly and take over an area completely. Other plants and all the insects and birds that depend upon them lose out. However, the applicant plans to install 13 cultivars that are no more resistant to disease than the parent. Therefore, please ask the applicant to replace the cultivars with their parents, if native, or with native plants whose characteristics are similar to those of the cultivars.

Now, another thing, the G2A needs a green roof like GT1. I see no reason why one has it and the other doesn't. So please put

a -- you have solar panels on G -- on G2. Please put some green roof mixed in with the solar panels, just like G1. I see no reason it shouldn't be there on one, but not the other. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Next, we have Ebony Payne. You'll have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready.

MS. PAYNE: Greetings, commissioners. My name is Ebony Payne and I am the Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner representing the historic Ward 7 community of Kingman Park, and the RFK Campus resides in my single-member district. My testimony today is to request the help of NCPC to reduce the amount of parking in the Kingman Commons District and either remove or bury the G2 parking garage underground. Despite extensive community engagement and hundreds of letters and testimony sent to the

D.C. Council and the mayor's office, Kingman Park residents have been effectively ignored and

are still slated to be on the receiving end of the largest parking garage ever built in D.C. history. With 3,600 parking spaces at nine stories high and longer than the Washington Monument, if it was laid on its side, this garage will tower over the community and sit largely empty most of the year, wasting valuable land and economic opportunity.

The plan claims to have answered the community by pausing one of the two original garages. However, in reality, all they did was combine them into one massive parking structure the community does not want and cannot accept. G2, in particular, makes no attempt to look attractive. And despite the claims there were -- there will be economic activation in the garage, in reality, it is not designed with any ground level retail or commercial infrastructure to support those claims. Utilizing this much land for parking is an expensive and unnecessary mistake that misses an opportunity to build the mixed use development that would create real

economic activity, such as with coffee shops, restaurants, retail stores, and housing, all of which the community has repeatedly asked for. The SportsPlex, for example, is dwarfed in comparison to the size of G2 when it should be the main feature of the Kingman Commons District.

The Commanders already have experience playing in stadiums that offer no parking. Last year, I had the privilege of attending their game held in Madrid, Spain's, Santiago Bernabeu Stadium. And this week, the team is playing in London's Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. Neither of these stadiums offer any general parking, and yet the team is able to plan them just fine. Every fan either walks, rides a bike, or takes the train and thousands of fans fill the surrounding restaurants and bars to watch the game, which generates an enormous amount of economic activity and supports local jobs. There is no reason D.C. cannot have the same vision. The wharf provides the best example of

a D.C. development that utilizes virtually all underground parking garages, allowing for robust economic activity above ground. Kingman Park would support an underground parking garage. However, community members were told this would not be possible due to the water table.

However, at NCPC's request to lower the sight lines of G1, we now can see in the updated master plan that there will be some underground parking in the Riverfront District, which is closer to the Anacostia River. So we now know that there is no excuse why underground parking cannot be utilized in G2. We have already seen the impact in CPC and the design efforts of G1. Kingman Park urgently needs your help -

PARTICIPANT: Time.

MS. PAYNE: -- and thank you.

And I also want to thank you, sir, for your commentary.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

MS. PAYNE: Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Next, we have Tamika

Middleton. You will have three minutes to -please proceed when you are ready.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: I believe, unless Tamika Middleton is here in person, we don't have them today, so we can move on to the next witness.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Okay. Thank you. Next, we have Tracy Sahay.

You will have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready.

MS. SAHAY: Thank you. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Tracy Sahay. My family has lived on Oklahoma Avenue in Kingman Park since 2018, where my home directly faces the RFK site. My husband and I are raising our two young daughters here, and they have spent their entire lives looking out at this campus. Contrary to assertions that my current view is merely asphalt, we have long enjoyed an expansive green open lawn along Oklahoma Avenue and an unobstructed view of Kingman Island. My

daughters learned to ride bikes on this path, played soccer, and searched for Easter eggs on Oklahoma Avenue lawn, and taking walks with us to Kingman Island. I've engaged in this process in good faith from day one. I've filled out surveys, attended town halls, and walked the site during community design walkthroughs. We were repeatedly promised a community-oriented plan. While recent improvements do show progress, significant work remains to keep that promise.

This design still primarily serves a stadium while treating Kingman Park as an afterthought, offering minor adjustments only where they don't compromise the massive parking and stadium infrastructure. Nowhere is this clearer than the decision to put the largest parking deck directly in our front yard. In Kingman Commons, Garage G2 is programmed for 3,600 vehicles, rising eight parking levels, dwarfing the sports complex, and becoming the single largest parking structure in the

district. Meanwhile, G1, on the south edge, away from residential homes is capped at only 2,400 spaces and partially buried. This allocation makes no planning sense. If 6,000 spaces are generally required, shift the bulk of that parking footprint to G1 where it does not border single-family homes and scale G down -G2 down dramatically.

When residents asked why it could not be varied, the response was it's simply too expensive. But if it can be fully funded and prioritized for G1, that speaks volumes to the double standard where money is spent on thoughtful design and goes to the stadium and riverfront corridor. But when it comes to mitigating the harms in our community, the budget isn't there. The daily toll on our residential street will be severe, a towering nine-story deck, and thousands of cars will be glaring lights and headlights directly into our front windows and our children's bedroom. While the master plan claims to replace asphalt with

green space, building this new 22nd Street connector road induces a massive expanse of fresh asphalt right along our edge.

Finally, thousands of idling, queuing vehicles down that three-lane roadway and into a 3,600 space garage creates a concentrated corridor of tailpipe exhaust and air pollution right along our sidewalks. Furthermore, sound carries. Between 3,600 parking stalls with relentless noise of event traffic down that new corridor, this plan replaces our quiet residential edge with a persistent industrial soundscape, and this creates an indefensible double standard. In Kingman Park -

PARTICIPANT: Time.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you. Last, we have Amy McMahon.

You will have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready.

MS. MCMAHON: Hi, I'm Amy McMahon, a resident of Kingman Park on 25th Place

Northeast. I'm testifying today about my concerns for the proposed RFK Stadium garage in my neighborhood. I want to share objections to the proposed location and size of parking garage G2 in the Kingman Commons District. G2 seems to offer little to no value to the neighborhood. Its size and 3,600 parking spots will make it the largest parking structure in D.C. history, but will offer no services beyond providing parking spaces for the new stadium. It will require extensive new roads within Kingman Park, which is a historic district that is granted official recognition and protection for its contribution to the cultural and aesthetic heritage of the nation's capital. Additionally, this would be detrimental to the community since the construction of this parking garage and proposed infrastructure will require paving over existing green space and heritage trees.

The garage and new roads will bring excessive traffic, destroying the peace of this historic community. Any development in this

area needs to keep in mind the neighborhood's history and seek to enhance its beauty. The current plan will be an eyesore and disregards the benefit and aesthetics of the neighborhood. I propose that G2 be relocated to Benning Road, which will keep traffic out of the neighborhood. This move could also encourage foot traffic to engage with businesses along Benning. Should this be deemed impossible, I propose that the design for G2 be changed to make it smaller, lower levels, underground, and the ground level would be designed to accommodate retailers so that Kingman Park, which lacks basic amenities such as grocery stores, coffee shops, and so on, can enjoy the same benefits from the development of RFK Campus as other neighborhoods. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Do commissioners have any questions for these witnesses? Okay. Our next witnesses will be Meredith Holmgren, Diana Hibbs, Sarah Miller, Alexis Pazmino, and Lisa White. First, we have

Meredith Holmgren.

You will have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready.

MS. HOLMGREN: Greetings, commissioners. My name is Meredith Holmgren and I too live in the Kingman Park neighborhood of Washington, D.C. I have grave concerns about the parking plans presented in the RFK master plan, which I believe will not only adversely affect our neighborhood, but the capital as a whole. The new garages represent the first and second-largest parking garages ever built in

D.C. history. These garages are projected to be filled to capacity only ten to 20 times per year, making them an extremely unproductive use of land and a perennial eyesore on the capital's monumental access.

The G2 garage, which abuts the Kingman Park neighborhood, is slated to host the largest amount of parking, which will obscure historic viewsheds and cause congestion, both

figuratively and literally around our Kingman Park National Historic District. Ultimately, the transportation plan must change to deemphasize vehicles, invest more in mass transit, and please consider the following alternatives: reduce the number of parking spaces on site and build all the parking underground, relocate all onsite parking to areas south of the stadium to places like Lot 8 or the D.C. Jail, which currently serve as surface parking lots. This will relieve pressure on the area's cultural and historic resources in the north of the stadium and improve viewsheds along the monumental access and alleviate transportation flows.

Three, if relocating all parking south of the stadium is not feasible, then the master plan should reconfigure the garages in Kingman Commons to flip the locations of the SportsPlex and G2, placing G2 along Benning Road and the SportsPlex further inside the neighborhood toward the stadium. This will allow G2 to build underground without conflicting with WMATA's

metro tunnels and improve transportation flows.

Four, critically, we must invest in a new Metro infill station at Benning and Oklahoma Avenue. Metro can move around 20,000 people in and out of the site per hour, making it extremely efficient, and this station is needed to supplement the armory in providing a level of service that is commiserate with other world-class facilities. Not including it in the master plan is a major oversight.

Five, make WMATA part of the parking strategy. WMATA has approximately 13,000 parking spaces already built within a 15-minute metro ride of the RFK site. The transportation plan should encourage visitors to park at those pre-built facilities and ride Metro into the site rather than bottleneck into two parking garages next to the stadium.

And I want to close by noting that in July of 2025, Kingman Park residents gathered more than 300 petition signatures from neighbors who support reducing parking on site, relocating

all parking south of the stadium -- to south of the stadium, and adding a metro infill station. Additionally, more than 130 people wrote 5,500 emails to D.C. decision makers supporting this platform and urging them to amend the term sheet. Let's join together in advancing a 21st century RFK stadiums that's befitting of our great capital's history as well as its future. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Next, we have Diana Hibbs.

You will have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready.

MS. HIBBS: Good afternoon. My name is Diana Hibbs and I'm a longtime resident of Kingman Park. As the plans are currently proposed, our community stands to be the big loser and the most -- and the most negatively affected by the RFK redevelopment and the Commanders' current plans to put an unimaginative and ugly ten-story behemoth

parking garage, G2, in our historic and quaint neighborhood. Kingman Park community members have, from the very beginning, been vocally against the idea of putting any kind of parking structure in our community, and yet there have been, to date, absolutely no concessions whatsoever.

We have been asking that our community green space be preserved. We have been asking that this unsightly G2 garage be relocated out of our community. We have been asking that it be built underground. Instead, we may get a multi-lane road where our common community green space is -- currently is. And if the plans go forward, we would have to look at a looming ten-story garage next to our two-story historic row houses. For years now, the district has worked to get drivers out of their cars and onto mass transit, bikes, and scooters, investing millions in bike lanes. Parking spaces have systematically been removed one by one, erecting flexi-posts to prevent drivers from parking in

perfectly good parking spaces.

Streets have been removed down to one lane, just like the protected bike lanes on C Street Northeast leading to RFK, and the 19th Street bike lane that runs parallel to RFK Campus itself. Instead of building on the ideals of mass transit and utilizing bike lanes, all of a sudden, because billionaires want thousands of parking spaces, the city is going to bend over backwards to accommodate their requests and at the direct expense of the tax paying residents of Kingman Park. Not only will this G2 garage be an ugly eyesore, it will also bring traffic, and pollution from car fumes, to our neighborhood.

Ron Perkel, who is here today testifying as well, has come up with a great plan to move the G2 parking garage so that the garage would be in alignment with the traffic flow from East Capital Street Bridge and closer to the stadium and other parking -- and the other parking garage. I hope you will take a

look at his graphics of the garages in alignment with the stadium. It is quite stunningly attractive as opposed to what is currently being proposed. The bottom line is Kingman Park residents are asking that the G2 parking garage be relocated out of our community. Thank you very much.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Next, we have Sarah Miller.

You are representing Friends of Kingman Park Civic Association, and you will have five minutes to provide your testimony.

MS. MILLER: Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Please proceed when you are ready.

MS. MILLER: Thank you. It's wonderful to be here with you all today. My name is Sarah Miller and I am on the board of the Friends of Kingman Park Civic Association. Our neighborhood, as you know, borders directly on the proposed Kingman Commons, and I'm here to express my community's disappointment with the

plan that has currently been proposed. The design of parking garage G2 obscures the sight line and elegance of the monumental corridor, and it also ignores the character and historic architecture of Kingman Park.

Kingman Park carries the designation of historic district. It is and has always been a vibrant home to historically significant moments of social engagement. Activism in Kingman Park contributed to the integration of the city's public playgrounds and to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Bolling v. Sharpe, a companion case to Brown v. Board of Education. The Kingman Park homes themselves are cohesive and distinguishable structures. They represent the single-family housing developments of the interwar period that define the physical growth of residential Washington.

The Kingman Park Historic District Design Guidelines emphasize the two-story height, front brick surfaces, one-story porches, metal cornices, stone and brick detailing, as

well as open and green front lawns, minimal fencing, and tree-lined streets. The current design of G2 is a colossal block of concrete. It's not elegant. It's not approachable. It does meet the criteria of being significant, but it is a significant detriment to our neighborhood feel and function and the physical environment. It has zero space for mixed use development, is not aligned with the historic district design guidelines, and towers over a beloved green space. And I thought it was interesting hearing, you know, the city wants to bring the neighborhoods to the water, whatever that quote was. Our neighborhood already interacts with the river so much.

The Anacostia Riverkeeper lives in our neighborhood. We have lots of people who volunteer in river restoration and education about how to take care of our environment. So like, we are there already. The location of G2 is on the space that neighbors have coined Oklahoma Lawn. This vast green space has become

an extension of our yards. It's where children play, kids learn to ride their bike, dogs walk, and neighbors come together to create memories and to create community. So G2 would take all of that green space away from us. And the proposed road to get from Benning to G2 paves over Oklahoma Lawn. It seems a little bit weird to, like, create a new green space while also actively taking away green space that the community loves. If G2 must be in our neighborhood, we request that it align with the historic architecture and feel that characterizes Kingman Park.

The ground level should be approachable and communal. We are a neighborhood of front porch conversations and backyard cookouts, kids playing in the alley. Put in retail, coffee shops, communal spaces, other amenities that neighbors have asked for, grocery stores, pharmacies, our local CVS just closed, not a sea of concrete and cars. The parking garage should be aesthetically aligned with the Kingman Park

architecture. Our homes have a low profile. They are made of brick. Some of them are painted in vibrant colors, reflecting the vibrancy of our neighborhood's diversity. Make the look and the feel of the garage match.

Additionally, G2 is situated in nationally significant open space per map UD-1 in the Monumental Core Streetscape's Guide, and it sits on the border of L'Enfant City boundaries and within view of a gateway and a capital gateway. And so as such, we are requesting that it be sized and styled in a manner suitable for such a location, which it currently is not. We are grateful for certain aspects of the plan, the attention paid to multimodal transportation, continued focus on protecting the National Capital's natural environment, and the desire to create a more productive and attractive national capital.

But we are requesting that NCPC, I don't know exactly, like, what your next steps are, but please consider our neighborhood's plea

to either move G2 somewhere else, put it underground, don't build that road over Oklahoma Lawn, and if it has to be there, please make the modifications that our neighbors have requested.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Next, we have Alex -- Alexis Pazmino.

You will have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you're ready.

MS. PAZMINO: Good afternoon. My name is Alexis Pazmino. I'm the president of Friends of Kingman Park Civic Association. I've lived in D.C. for 19 years, bought my house in 2022. Kingman Park's Historic District Guidelines, as you heard, emphasize two-story height, front brick porches, et cetera. I mean, minimal fencing, tree lined streets. It's a neighborhood. Meanwhile, the current design of G2 is a colossal block of gray concrete, greige, if you're generous. It's a screeching halt to our neighborhood feel, function, and physical environment. G2, as you heard, will be the

largest parking garage in D.C. history. You've heard about the height and length, but it's also 248 feet deep. That's over 80 yards for football fans. And not a single level is planned below grade. This design must change.

But the most egregious part of the plan is that it's a single-use garage. We are in a food desert and there are no active frontages in G2 for grocery stores, pharmacies, or even a coffee shop. The Office of Planning yesterday called this campus a model for equitable and inspiring development. But I ask, is it equitable to cut off an entire neighborhood from the visual elegance, the human scale activity, and the economic benefit of the rest of the site? G2 will tower over, and the new KCA road servicing it will pave over, our vast beloved green space called Oklahoma Lawn.

Oklahoma Lawn, as Sarah said, is nationally -- a nationally significant open space, and it sits on the border of the original L'Enfant plan within the view of a gateway and a

capital gateway. But more than that, it's a public amenity where people gather, play, celebrate, and rest. The lawn is rich with heritage trees that not only speak to the history of the land, but also cool temperatures, as Kingman Park is a heat island, but the lawn will be lost to G2. In exchange for this loss,

D.C. has provided a postage stamp size Oklahoma Park. How many acres is Oklahoma Lawn now? How many acres is Oklahoma Park? It's not enough to make up for 3,600 space loss.

Reducing the size and putting G2 below grade and, frankly, moving it will preserve this precious green space, respect the integrity of our neighborhood, and maintain this nationally significant open space. If any of G2 must remain above ground, it should be activated with mixed use development. This will integrate the structure into existing neighborhoods. It will help make the garage feel human scale and inviting for both game day visitors and neighbors alike. It must also include design

elements like setbacks to break up the scale, terraces to mimic porches, the porches of the adjacent historic district, and fundamentally change the look of this sad gray slab to respect the community that it will wholly disrupt. This design must change. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Finally, we have Lisa White.

You will have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready.

MS. WHITE: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Lisa White. I am a fifth generation Washingtonian on my father's side and a fourth generation Washingtonian on my mother's side. My family has almost 90 years of history in Kingman Park. Next week on October 13th, my father will turn 86 years old. He was born in Kingman Park on 25th Place Northeast, one block from Oklahoma. And my family have a rich history in Kingman Park. The G1 garage -- the G2 garage is of utmost concern for me in my

neighborhood. I live and I purchased my home over 20 years ago. I knew that RFK Stadium was a potential to come back to the community. It's been there my whole life. I'm over 50, so I always remember the RFK Stadium. However, with them coming back, I am opposed of that G2 garage. It does not aesthetically fit the dynamics of our current neighborhood.

It would take the green space away from our community. It would be an eyesore for its usage. We understand that parking is definitely needed because I don't want them on my block and most of my communities do not want the fans parking on our block. So we understand that parking is important. However, there are other spaces in this footprint that G1 garage can be put in. We need to figure it out, go back to the drawing board. Now that the stadium armory is being moved, that could be a potential set place for the G2 garage to be moved. But right there in that space to be nine -- possible nine stories with no activation, it's just

unacceptable. Would they want to live and see that garage in their home, in their neighborhood, and the green space taken? If the garage comes, figure it out to make it be as structurally pleasing, lower the amount of levels, lower it, figure it out.

We have to keep the integrity of Kingman Park. We are a historic district. We are a historical neighborhood. We have such a rich history. Let's not destroy it with a G2 parking lot. I just want the board to take that in consideration. I know that you've heard voices from all over the city and our community. Just listen to us. Figure it out. I appreciate the board going back and making these recommendations to make Kingman Park a better place and to move that garage or make it aesthetically pleasing to the Kingman Park community and the district as a whole. I thank you for your time and your consideration this afternoon and have a good evening.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Commissioner -

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Oh, I'm sorry. Before we move to questions, Tamika Middleton was able to join online, so if we would -- could move to her testimony and then do questions.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Sure.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Tamika Middleton, are you with us?

MS. MIDDLETON: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Okay. You can proceed when you're ready. You have three minutes. Thank you. Ms. Middleton, are you with us?

MS. MIDDLETON: Can you hear me?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Now we can. You can proceed when you're ready.

MS. MIDDLETON: I apologize. My name is Tamika Middleton and I'm a proud owner of a condominium on Oklahoma Avenue. I'm at 420. The stadium is slated to be 400 Oklahoma, meaning it is directly at my footsteps. When I open my door, there is the structure. I understand there -- there's -- there needs to be

parking, but the small piece that I won't get into my testimony, I'll reserve it for online, is that there are a few residents that live on this -- in this neighborhood that will not have parking. So imagine that. You take our parking, street parking, and give it to garage parking for entertainment purposes.

This impacts -- this will impact my daily life. Where will I park? How will I bring my groceries in? What will I do on a daily basis with my car once this structure is built across the street? So again, will there be any concessions for the residents that live on Oklahoma, directly in front of the structure, to park in these garages any other time, 300 -you know, 24 hours, seven days a week? Will we have a place to park in these structures because you've sacrificed our parking for the stadium parking? Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Do the commissioners have any questions for these witnesses?

COMMISSIONER CASH: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Actually, I wonder if Ms. Payne, or Commissioner Payne, if you're still around -- so I'd mentioned a couple of ideas, just kind of back of the napkin, about the idea of maybe moving the parking garage up adjacent to the SportsPlex. I heard some testimony about maybe flipping them and putting the SportsPlex closer to the inside of the footprint instead of on the outside. Has the commission talked at all about that, or has the ANC weighed in on, like, whether G2 might make sense farther away, or are you all just wanting to lower the profile or get rid of it, or have there been discussions about other configurations up there that'd be more acceptable to the community?

MS. PAYNE: So the community is very supportive of the SportsPlex, and people would be supportive of having that be more of a main feature. The focus has been so much on just

getting rid of G2, getting it out of our neighborhood, putting it underground. We don't want to see it. And so far, it's just been such a fight to just get to that point that there hasn't been a lot of attention to the other details of the plan.

There's a small lot in front of the fields at RFK, which the community fought very hard to protect. We would love to see those be integrated into the overall SportsPlex design. And the Kingman Commons District -- I would love to see that being not just a mixed-use development, but also a -- more of a sports district that is for our youth, for athletes. We have the DC Vault, which trains Olympians in pole-vaulting. I've seen kids go from middle school to having full-ride scholarships at Howard University. So we would love to see more -- an imaginative plan for Kingman Commons that isn't just focused on parking.

And I do want to reiterate that to us, we don't understand why the community that is

currently in Kingman Park, why we're getting the largest garage when there's all of this land that is vacant and unused in Lot 8, which is on the far side where G1 would be. To us, it just doesn't make sense that the current residents are being expected to bear the burden of all of the parking when there is so much vacant land that the team could use. So we want to see, as people mentioned, grocery stores, coffee shops, retail, housing, sports amenities. We want our neighborhood to be a real neighborhood.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Thanks. And there was some mention -- and I just wonder if -because I think that we only give you the three minutes, even though I assume you're representing the commission. But could you talk a little bit about the widening of the now parallel Oklahoma Avenue, I guess you would call it, and some of the concerns about that coming all the way in and whether or not you all think that it'll have effects that even on non-game days is creating, like, a cut-through or

anything like that for the Kingman Park neighborhood to get people from Benning down to, say, East Capitol?

MS. PAYNE: So you're talking about 22nd Street?

COMMISSIONER CASH: Or 22nd. Yeah.

MS. PAYNE: Yes. So the community currently uses the Oklahoma Avenue lawn for dog walking, for block parties, and it is a used green space. There used to be a playground before they did the fields at RFK, and so it is used by residents quite frequently. And so the concern is that the only reason why they need that street is to service the garage. So if you get rid of the garage, then you don't need that road. There seems to be plenty of asphalt currently to build a road, but they're going into the green space. So again, we just don't understand why are you taking away green space when you have plenty of asphalt to utilize.

COMMISSIONER CASH: And last question. I'd mentioned about maybe moving Oklahoma Park,

or whatever we're calling it, farther down into the center of the new Kingman Commons or closer to the stadium. Have you all weighed in on whether you'd rather have that green space farther up where it was shown in the diagrams or would you see that possible green space as being just as valuable, if not more, if you moved a little bit more into the center of the campus?

MS. PAYNE: I'm not familiar which -with which -

COMMISSIONER CASH: So -

MS. PAYNE: -- green space you're -

COMMISSIONER CASH: So there was the SportsPlex -- in the current diagram, there's the SportsPlex, and there's the Oklahoma Park, they're calling it, and then there's the garage. And I'd mentioned maybe putting the garage up by the SportsPlex and moving that green space farther down closer to the stadium.

MS. PAYNE: Well -

COMMISSIONER CASH: Do you all -- have you all -- do you -- have you weighed in on

whether this Oklahoma Park is really important up where it's at right now, or -

MS. PAYNE: We already have a park. It's the -- we call it the Oklahoma Avenue Lawn. It is actually historically -- I believe it was a concession to the community from the first stadium. So they have -- it's a buffer to keep the car traffic from the community. So they're taking away that buffer that was originally given to the community so that there wasn't going to be so much traffic directly on the neighborhood. So we want our green space. We want mixed-use development. It's just there is asphalt currently there that's available to utilize. So we just -- we don't want any of our green space taken away.

COMMISSIONER CASH: So I just say -- I mean, as you all are deliberating on this and sending additional comments to the council -- to this commission, I think it would be good to know about, like, some of these configurations because I do want to be careful that -- I think

we're kind of at a zero-sum game right now. We -- I don't think that the current lawn can stay, but I think that if there's a possibility of moving the garage to a more desirable location and opening up -- unlocking green space in other places, but I do want to be careful about not setting an expectation that I think we can keep the entirety of that green space there because the economics and the deal that the council made with the mayor 18 months ago now -there has to be a certain number of buildings to make all this viable. But I think the quality of the buildings and the things that are in the neighborhood are very important. And to dump the parking garage into the current neighborhood instead of having conversations with the neighborhood about how to put the infrastructure that has to go there and making sure that it's compatible with the existing neighborhood, I think that's really important.

And as the commission is moving forward and you all have comments, I think that'd be

very enlightening to know, like, if there's configurations with -- knowing all the pieces that have to go and making sense of where they fit the best, I think that -- that's good for all of us policymakers.

MS. PAYNE: Right. And to be clear, the community is supportive of any active uses. I mean, people just mentioned we lost our CVS. We lost our Safeway. So if we're losing part of the green space, people just want to make sure that whatever is built there is something that the community can use 365 days a year.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I -- I'm not sure whether or not there's options for us to look at spaces beyond the -- this footprint of the stadium. I mean, being familiar with Benning Road and that whole strip from Langston Golf Course, I guess, east, is just wide open. There's nothing there except a driving range for Langston. Seems to me -- I mean, people get on -- go to parking lots and get on the subway to go everywhere. Why

couldn't the parking be moved away -- off of the space completely and put on Benning Road and hook up to the Metro right there? And you could even probably embellish the driving range that the Langston Golf Course has, and it would be functional with it, maybe even, like, a Topgolf thing, hooked up in -- I don't know all you could do, but move it there. And you still get -- okay. So you got to get out of your car and get on the subway and ride one stop or wherever to the stadium. But I don't see why it couldn't be done. Maybe there's some understanding with the mayor, the funding. I don't know exactly, but it just seems to me that that would be -- enhance that neighborhood. The strip is just empty. It needs retail on that strip. Right now, there's nothing there. And it would seem to be -- that would be a -- an opportunity to -- and -- to put things there and park there and make it useful for the community. So I don't know.

MS. PAYNE: And to your point, the

community was desperately wanting a new infill Metro station at Oklahoma Avenue, and we would still like to see that be considered.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: This would be that type of thing. If you had parking, like, where the driving range is now, in that area. It would help -- could help the driving range. It could also be retail, and it wouldn't be taking up the green space that we're now dealing with. (inaudible).

MS. PAYNE: No questions.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

MS. PAYNE: Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Our last witnesses will be Lora Nunn, Catherine Mouer, David Bagby, Ronald Perkel, and Joaquin Altoro.

First, we will have Lora Nunn. You'll have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Is Ms. Nunn here in person? No, I don't believe we have Ms. Nunn, so we can move on to Catherine Mouer. Thank

you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Okay. Next, we have Catherine Mouer. You will have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready.

MS. MOUER: Hi. I just want to say thank you to the commission for considering community input. I appreciate the opportunity to be heard, but I ask that the NCPC truly listen to the residents as we speak out against this. I'm a newer -- oh, sorry. One second. There we go. I'm a newer resident to Kingman Park, but my immediate neighbors are all longtime residents, averaging about 30 years in the neighborhood amongst them. I know their concerns, and while I speak for myself, I want to say that my opinions today are formed because of the conversations I have had with them.

I look forward to seeing the Commanders return to D.C., and I understand that parking is necessary to do so. With tens of thousands of visitors to the stadium, thousands of parking

spots are going to be required to accommodate them. However, I do think it's important that the parking provided accommodate the surrounding community and our wishes as residents.

The current garage plan for the G2 Garage is large and imposing. The planned garage would be the largest in the district, standing at an imposing nine stories and longer than the Washington Monument is tall. The current plan would force residents to endure a monstrosity of a parking garage that will block sunlight and effectively overtake the entire visual appearance of the neighborhood. Not to mention, this towering structure will greatly reduce the footprint of Oklahoma Lawn, turning it into a small park, and taking away numerous longstanding trees and recreation space from the community.

As such, I ask a few things. First, I ask that you reduce the visual footprint of the garage. Consider extending the garage partially or fully into the ground in order to reduce the

height and visual impact to residents. Second, I ask that you create a facade that mimics the surrounding architecture of the neighborhood. Actually look at the houses. Look at the schools and mimic that architecture. So that way, it's cohesive. And then third, I ask that you include ground-floor retail and entertainment space, as other parking locations have across the District of Columbia. This will maximize the lot space and make the space more inviting to both residents and visitors that come to the stadium.

While it's important that the event visitors have accessible parking for their hours in Kingman Park, it's important to also remember that the residents of the neighborhood will have to live with the structure permanently. We deserve to be equally considered in the plans and have the least burdensome parking structure possible as we accommodate the stadium and the Commanders' return to D.C. Please amend the garage plans to accommodate residents of the

neighborhood. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Next, we have David Bagby. You'll have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you are ready.

MR. BAGBY: Thank you very much. I have some prepared remarks, but before doing that, I want to respond to a few of the commissioner's remarks made today. I love the idea about some docks for some small boat access on the river. That was a fantastic suggestion by one of the commissioners. D.C. is woefully underserved in that area. And as someone who lives on Oklahoma Avenue immediately across from this land, I would certainly utilize that.

Another commissioner's comments about moving the G2 Garage north -- I would say to that suggestion, that would actually block the river view from residents on Oklahoma Avenue. The presenter was right that where the train emerges, there's a concrete wall that blocks the view currently behind the proposed G2. If you

move the G2 north, you would essentially ensure that it would go concrete wall, parking garage, SportsPlex, and all of Oklahoma would have no view or access to the river directly.

So I think it's a good idea, but practically, it would actually be worse for us is -- with respect to access to the river. What I would do, though, is associate myself strongly with your remarks on the need for retail. Everything you said on that was spot on, and thank you for it.

With that said, thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to testify today. Respectfully, and as a homeowner who lives on Oklahoma Avenue immediately across from the land in question, I encourage you not to approve the G2 Parking Garage before you because it is not in compliance with Public Law 118-274, the D.C. RFK Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act, the federal law that transferred the RFK Campus to the District of Columbia and that governs its development.

One of the explicitly enumerated requirements for the development of the RFK Campus as outlined in Section 2C6 of the Act states the following: "The District shall carry out measures that, to the greatest extent practicable, will reduce the impact of noise and traffic of the development on surrounding residential areas in the District." Instead of taking steps to alleviate noise and traffic on existing residents, however, the plan before you proposes building a 3,600-car garage, almost double the size of the largest parking garage currently in our city, and building it to where the northwest corner of the structure will be approximately 100 feet away from our residential doorstep.

Additionally, to service this garage -and it should be noticed here that the -- noted here that the Ronald Reagan Building Parking Garage, one of the current if -- current largest if not the largest garage in the city, is entirely underground, whereas none of the

proposed G2 Garage would be underground. It's proposed to be serviced by a new three- to four-lane road slated to be built immediately in front of mine and my neighbor's homes along Oklahoma Avenue, according to the slide deck attached to today's memo. The placement of the parking garage immediately adjacent to Kingman Park and the creation of a new multi-lane road to service it, again, is contrary to the requirement in federal law that measures be carried out to reduce the impact of noise and traffic on surrounding residential areas.

It's also offensive to the residents of the existing local community. Two garages are proposed today. The smaller of the two, G1, is located in the eastern rear of the stadium, half a mile from the nearest residence and on an existing surface parking lot that could comfortably fit five to six G1-sized parking garages. Additionally, that land sits immediately next to a road that leads directly to the interstate and less -

PARTICIPANT: Time.

MR. BAGBY: -- than half a mile -

PARTICIPANT: Time.

MR. BAGBY: And I'll leave it there, but thank you for the commission's time.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Next, we have Ronald Perkel. You all have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you're ready.

MR. PERKEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you so much for this opportunity. My name is Ronald Perkel. I am a resident at C Street and Oklahoma, ground zero, right on where this is proposed. So I like to think I can consider myself an expert on how the project might actually go down with the G2 Garage as proposed. 3,600 cars during game day, lesser than that, but all throughout the year, will simply not work on an intersection governed by a -- by a traffic light.

Project GLOW this summer -- a tiny footprint. When that ended, cars were backed up

all the way and looking frustrated drivers trying to get access down the other side streets and alleyways. The plan proposes the new 22nd Street road to intersect right into C Street. It's not possible. There's a hill there. It's about 22 degrees. It's where we go sledding. You're going to have to grade East Capitol to make it work. There goes all those heritage trees.

There are heritage trees along the proposed 22nd Street, which will be gone. That street will cut off the entire neighborhood access to the river, destroying the character of the park, but there are better ways. Move the garage into Plaza District, which is already unused fallow parking areas, just like Lot 8 is going to be used for G1. Once there, you're not interfering with any sight lines of any residences, and, heck, build as high as you want if that's the case.

With the proposed change to the Armory and Reservation 13, there is ample property to

do this right. As was said yesterday during the Committee of the Whole with the council, we only have one shot at this to get it. Once ground breaks and the money is invested, you can't go back, and we'll be living with these errors, forced errors for decades.

Last thing I want to say on this: Design the garages round. By moving into the Plaza District, you take advantage of the existing infrastructure: East Capitol, C Street, 22nd Street already there, moving around to Independence Avenue. No traffic lights. Traffic is managed by merges directly in. You mirror the monumental beauty of the new stadium design by bookended structures. When, on game day, 2030, when 20 -- when 10 million eyeballs are watching the game on drones and streaming devices -- you'd mentioned comparisons to other cities. The entire nation will see the marriage of development intelligently of stadium, parking, and commercial development, and everyone will be a Commanders' fan thereby.

Thank you so much for your time.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Finally, we have Joaquin Altoro. You will have three minutes to provide your testimony. Please proceed when you're ready.

MR. ALTORO: Good afternoon. Joaquin Altoro. I'm a Kingman Park resident, and I live just a few blocks from the proposed G2 Garage. I also served for many years on the plan commission in my hometown. During that time, someone one -- once asked me whether I had ever personally had to deal with the same kind of issue being presented to us in my own neighborhood, and I had not. That question changed how I approached my responsibility. It reminded me that I needed to do my best to understand and empathize with the people who came before us and would actually have to live with the consequences of our decisions. And I thank you for doing that today for Kingman Park.

My concern is specifically with G2. It is simply too large and too close to our

neighborhood. I appreciate that the commission has already recognized concerns about G2's height, orientation, and the possibility of phasing its upper floors because of its proximity to Kingman Park, but I think we need to go beyond asking how to make this garage look better. We need to ask whether G2 belongs in this location, at this scale, in the first place.

When you look at the plans and the renderings, G2 is a major structure sitting between Kingman Park and the fields, trails, parks, and riverfront beyond it. This redevelopment should make those public amenities feel more connected and accessible to our neighborhood, not place a massive permanent building between the neighborhood and the campus, so I would ask the commission to look seriously at alternatives. Could this parking be moved farther away from Kingman Park? Could more of it be placed underground? Could G2 have a substantially smaller above-ground footprint?

Could the upper levels be phased rather than built immediately? Those are especially important questions because the overall parking strategy is still being developed around assumptions about how people will travel to and from the stadium.

The current plan itself contemplates a combination of permanent garages and temporary surface parking with opportunities for additional structured parking later as the campus develops. That gives us flexibility. We do not need to treat the current size and location of G2 as inevitable. And when we are dealing with a permanent structure next to an established residential neighborhood, I believe the prudent approach is to minimize the impact now and preserve options for the future. If additional parking ultimately proves necessary, that can be addressed. But if G2 is built too large in the wrong location, Kingman Park cannot simply undo it. Our neighborhood will live with its scale, its physical presence, and its effect

on our connection to RFK Camps -- campus for decades.

So my central question is this: Before we commit to G2 in this location and at this scale, have we truly exhausted the alternatives that would place less of this structure along the Kingman Park edge? That's the question you asked. I ask the commission to require serious evaluation of relocating G2 or some of its parking, placing more parking underground, reducing the above-ground footprint, and meaningfully phasing any additional levels. Once G2 is built, we will live with this decision for decades. This is the point in the process to get it right. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Do Commissioners have any questions for these witnesses? Okay. That concludes the public testimony. Thank you all for testifying today. Is there a motion to approve comments on concept plans for the RFK Campus New Stadium Parking Garages?

COMMISSIONER COZART: So moved.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Okay. Thank you.

Is there a second?

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: I'll second.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: I'll now open up to commission for discussion. I'll start with deliberations from Commissioner Cozart.

COMMISSIONER COZART: Good afternoon. First, I want to thank the staff for your great work. I think the comments are well put together, really great analysis, and provide some good guidance for thinking about how to get these right. I also want to thank the many folks who wrote in testimony and then also came here to testify here in the chamber and online. It's really important for this commission to hear what they've shared. And in many ways, I see a lot of the comments from the staff report really reflect those, so just want to say thanks for that.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

Additional comments? Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay.

COMMISSIONER BRUCH: No. I want to thank you for the great presentation and all the comments and input provided to the council. This is a -- this is a tough one to solve as you develop areas like this. Clearly, you need the mobility, or we need the mobility into the stadium, and I'm sure there's some novel out -ideas out there that can further be explored and will be in the further development of the plan. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: So thank you for the presentation and for the comments in the EDR. I do agree with what you -- what has been included already in the EDR and would really like to add to those comments. I grew up in this area my entire life, and I think parking and RFK and getting access to and from the stadium has been central to the ability of the stadium to be successful. And I would really hate for us to be in a position where we're reconsidering a stadium here and not be thinking

right about the parking and getting the parking right from the get-go. You've done a fabulous job of working with the community and listening to them thus far. I think it's important to continue that conversation and listen to them and work with them and figure out a location that does make sense.

You know, I'm not sold on the locations that you've established. I think that it needs a bit more consideration between the infringement on the view shed of the stadium itself from that one garage, the size of both of these stadiums, and just it -- it's hard to talk about the architecture of the garages without the sort of element of the rest of the development. So we're sort of looking at these architecturally without a frame of reference, except where it comes from the Kingman neighborhood, where there is a frame of reference.

And you have tried to break down that garage in a way that resembles row houses or

gives that look, and that feel, but it's just so big. So I would have you consider the locations. And I would have you reconsider the design of both of these and how they fit into standards that you're development -- developing on how these neighborhoods -- the new neighborhood expands so that it is not an afterthought, that it is from the minute new development goes in and considering the development that is already there, how these fit into the neighborhood, how they operate with the neighborhood, how the neighborhood uses these on off-days because these will be here for a really long time. So it's really important to get it right from the get-go.

I think that the open space, you -just from a Department of Interior perspective, it's so very important for neighborhoods -- for urban development, for neighborhoods to have open spaces. And the idea of offering up a space, but taking away a space at the same time doesn't feel like the right move. Consider how

that space could maintain as you consider where this parking garage needs to be.

So I think I'll stop there, but you're hearing a lot of comments both here and the hearing that took place yesterday, as well as through your public engagement. And, you know, this approval here today is comments on concept. I think you should listen to those comments and think about what makes sense for this as an overall development that will be with us for a very long time. So thank you.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo, are you with us?

COMMISSIONER ARGO: I am. Can you hear me?

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Yes.

COMMISSIONER ARGO: I think the easiest and most expeditious way I can comment is I would love to associate my remarks and -- with the comments of Commissioner Stidham. Appreciate those, and they're thoughtful. And I think we're right on point. Thank you.

VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yeah. I think that the -- for me, the design test is what this looks like at full build-out. And that's at least how I've been thinking about it as through -- thought your presentation. And so I think that, certainly, there's some points about interim landscaping and things you can do, and they're practical in the interim. But ultimately, it's what it's going to look like for many years beyond that. And I agree with this. I think the CFA supported option two on G1. I think that's a better look because when you think about it, it's going to be wrapped by development on three sides. And so that's -- I think that's at least how I see that garage.

Now with -- and actually, before I get to that point, I think the renderings would be helpful next time when you come back to look at both the side-by-side of what it will look like in the interim and then what it looks like at full build-out. I'm particularly interested in the view from the Whitney Young Bridge and what

you can do to try to preserve that vantage point.

The -- I think on G2 -- so I don't have strong views on the site. I think there are a number of interesting ideas that were put forward. I just look at it as the commission's Maryland resident. I live in Montgomery County. They're -- this is a regional facility, and there'll be people coming from Prince George's, Anne Arundel, Howard, Frederick, and even further parts out. And they look at the experience from door to door. And I take public transport every day. I've been doing it for 20 years now, coming in on the Red Line, but there -- sometimes it's just not feasible to come in on public transport. And you have people with families. People have mobility limitations. The split mode can be challenging for people. People want to tailgate. And so at least that's how I look at it.

So I would be -- the one thing I would keep in mind is that that demand to drive in and

park, like some people -- that residual demand will not go away. And so hopefully, the G2 can resolve the spillover effects and not exacerbate them. I think that would be a disappointment if the solution on parking doesn't resolve the residual demand and all these spillover effects that you're trying to minimize ultimately aren't solved and the community has to deal with all this -- all these people coming in looking for a place to put their car on game day.

So I would just encourage you to make sure you resolve the spillover effects. And I think that we talked a little bit about some of the spillover effects that could occur from the road to the side streets. And I'm interested in the traffic management plan and specifically how you're going to minimize that because that -again, it's important to solve both those problems, both the residual demand for parking and the spillover effects, which have historically occurred in this community. So I just want to underscore that point. And I

appreciate everything you're doing. I know you're going to work hard on this from now until when you come back.

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yeah. I associate with many of the comments already made. I don't have much in addition to add. Thank you very much for the presentation, the level of public engagement today. You know, I think just generally speaking, it would be a shame, given all the time, energy, and resources put into building out such a beautiful design for the stadium, for that to be taken away or detracted in some way by a garage or a garage facility that's adjacent to it and obstructive and, potentially, you know, detracting just from the general beauty of the monumental structure that's supposed to be the gateway for the city. So I just, you know -- I would -- I think we should be smart about our design here, take into consideration the public comments, also take into consideration other executive orders initiated to, you know, beautify the city and to

ensure that the buildings kind of blend together seamlessly, and, you know, the comments made about adding landscaping and green space to create more of a natural-looking environment.

I think all those things will factor into how these garages ultimately are designed and perceived by the public and could -- you know, short of -- you know, maybe we're not able to, or maybe they can explore certain channels by which they may be able to, you know, do some part of it underground or at least consider that as an option. But short of that, at least if the building exterior is, you know, looking consistent with the architectural tapestry of the main facility, I think, is an important factor to considerate -- to consider in the course of this process. But really appreciate the work done today. And I do associate myself with the other comments made previously.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: I associate myself with all the comments that have been made. I do think -- first of all, let's say that the

Commanders won. They won one. Hopefully, that will continue wherever they are, and however we park. But where they are now -- is there any -are there any parking garages where you are -where they are now?

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: 20,000 surface spaces.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Surface space. That's -- so we're trying to accommodate those 20,000 in parking garages here in our community. Maybe they should try to use the Metro and come in, so they don't have one in Maryland. They couldn't do that. So they had to park someplace, and they just parked in great spaces. We never -- and they did okay. We're doing okay with the Skins. I mean, I'm sorry, the Commanders. I date myself.

At any rate, I -- I'm waiting to see what happens. I hope we listen. Listen. Sometimes we listen, and we can't act for other reasons. Seems to me we can't act here. I still think we should move D -- G -- D2, Parking

2 -- over to Benning Road and pump that street up and make it functional. Give us some retail over there. It's only a few blocks to walk. Get some, you know, whatever. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Thanks to the team. Despite a lot of my questions, I do just want to acknowledge that I think that we are in such a good place relative to what we currently see in Maryland. 20,000 surface spaces. I mean, this could have been a whole different discussion. And actually, early in the presentation, I saw the Kansas City parking lots, and I actually went to my junior prom at the -- at Kauffman Stadium.

So I can tell you that a bunch of parking lots is not anywhere near as nice as what we are going to have here, one way or another. But I know that I pushed the project team. I think there's some more work that can be done to alleviate some of the concerns, but I also don't want to minimize the excellent work that's already been done. I think that a lot of

the trepidation that a lot of people came into with the design of the stadium itself, a lot of people were pleasantly surprised with how we really nailed it with a lot of this community engagement.

I think that with just a little bit more work or a little bit more imagination, especially on the retail side with these garages, that we can get these to a better place that has everyone at least a little less unhappy and really make what I think is going to be an amazing facility, an amazing amenity for the entire region, but especially for the district.

I think that we're really close to making this a better design than it is right now. So I would hope that you take the comments that I've made today and some of the questions that I've raised and integrate that into the continuing discussion on the garages. But overall, I think that the entire project is in a really good place. And I really want to thank the project team, also Planning for their work

on the master plan and everything else that's

gone into this so far. So thanks.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thanks.

Laura, thanks for your presentation and the NCPC team. I want to thank the public for their great testimony. I really appreciate you both virtually and in person testifying to make your views known. You care and you love your community, so I appreciate that. And -

MS. HOTTEL-COX: We have two commissioners online that haven't spoken. If they -

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: I'm sorry about that.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Sure. Just -

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Briefly, I think I will leave it to the folks from the community about G2. I think they've made a lot of good points and a lot to consider there. But on G1, I echo what the vice chairman said. It's

hard to really take stock of what that is until we see the totality of all the stuff that's going to go around it because that's going to change the views. And everything is dependent on the total package. So it would be helpful to see more of that as this comes back. So thank you.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: And, Commissioner Falcone?

COMMISSIONER FALCONE: I don't have much to add beyond expressing my appreciation for the NCPC staff and the members of the public for providing comments. I mentioned last meeting that Chairman Comer was very proud to have led the bipartisan initiative for the land transfer, the RFK site. I'm very excited to have the Commanders returned back to D.C. I do agree that it would be helpful to see, as the previous commissioner mentioned, the totality of the area build out around G1 in the future. But again, appreciate members of the public for providing feedback and testimony.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Okay.

Great discussion today. Again, appreciate everyone coming out to testify. Thanks to the Commanders for your presentation. I hope you take the feedback from the community and from the commission. We look forward to your next presentation. I'm a longtime Giants fan, so never been a fan of the Redskins or Commanders, but look forward to them being back in the city where they belong.

So -- okay. Are there any further comments or questions?

Okay. Can the secretary please confirm the motion and the second and take the vote by roll call?

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

Commissioner Cozart?

COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch?

COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham? COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo? COMMISSIONER ARGO: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Vice Chairman

Levenbach? VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Paoletta? CHAIR PAOLETTA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia? COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone? COMMISSIONER FALCONE: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Motion carries

unanimously. CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you.

The motion is carried. Agenda item 6B is next. It's a request to approve final site and building plans for the White House visitor screening facility.

Lee Webb?

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

472 15TH STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC

WHITE HOUSE VISITOR SCREENING FACILITY

MR. WEBB: Wow. Okay. So good afternoon, Chairman Paoletta and commissioners. The Executive Office of the President in conjunction with the United States Secret Service and the National Park Service have submitted final site and building plans for the construction of a new permanent security screening facility for visitors to the White House complex in downtown Washington, D.C.

As a reminder, from last month, as you can see here on this image, the project will be located within the White House grounds in President's Park north of the National Mall.

Within President's Park, the project is located primarily in Sherman Park and East Executive Avenue. The commission approved the preliminary site and building plans for the project at its September 3rd, 2026, meeting. Since that time, the applicant has provided additional information requested by the commission and has provided justifications for final design approaches.

As a reminder, for the final review stage, the commission is focused on topics such as if the comments provided during the preliminary review were adequately addressed and if the applicant has submitted all requested materials for the final review. For the final review, the applicant has carried forward the location and design approach for the new visitor screening facility as approved at preliminary and shown in this rendering.

The entrance pavilion's design has not changed since the preliminary review. Its location preserves key public view sheds while

providing a dignified central entry point to the White House from the park. The entrance pavilion is conceived as a classically inspired composition that reinforces the former -- the formal character and the significance of the site.

In response to the commission's comments at preliminary, the applicant determined alternative designs for the exit pavilion do not establish as strong of a visual relationship and continuity with the architecture of the adjacent new White House ballroom. As such, the approach for the architectural detailing shown in the final plans is consistent with those from the preliminary review. As shown in this rendering, the incorporation of Corinthian capitals on the exit pavilion reinforces the connection aligning with the ballroom's classical architectural language.

Staff notes that the applicant will continue to consult with the Section 106 MOA signatories, including the NCPC, to consider

further design refinements for the exit pavilion. In response to discussion during the preliminary review regarding functionality, the below grade component will include the necessary security procedures, technology, and support space to meet the Secret Service's mission for screening all visitors entering the White House, including for major events.

The space is organized as an open floor plan to provide maximum flexibility with six lanes to accommodate current screening processes and equipment and to support adaptation to evolving screening technologies and capabilities. The facility has an occupancy capacity of over 700 people to allow adequate space for queuing throughout the various phases of screening.

At the preliminary review, the commission requested the applicant provide, as part of the final submission, a landscape plan that identifies the proposed locations and species for all replacement trees and other

plantings. In response, the applicant has included a full landscape plan and replacement trees will include willow oaks, Princeton elms, and flowering dogwoods.

Throughout the review process, the applicant has worked to improve both the site plan and the building design in coordination with the review agencies and the consulting parties. As such, staff recommends that the commission approve the final site and building plans for the new White House visitor screening facility located at President's Park in Northwest Washington, D.C. In addition, staff recommends that the commission commend the applicant for working with the review agencies and the consulting parties throughout this process.

As I've covered the executive director's recommendations in my presentation, I will not repeat them, but they're here for reference. And I would mention that Andy Stohs and Jeff Harner with the applicant team are here

for any questions the commission may have. That concludes my presentation. Thank you.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: I know the chairman stepped away, but if there are any questions from commissioners right now, we could probably go ahead and start those.

VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Okay. I have one question on the landscape. I'm just curious. I know some of those trees, there's a lot -- there's a lot of below-grade infrastructure. Did the tree selection consider what's below grade and whether the trees can actually grow to maturity based on the soil that's underneath?

MR. STOHS: Yes, absolutely. We had a lot of conversation about that. And we maintained 4 to 5 feet of fill above the structure and orient. The trees were, through all the studies, the root structure actually goes quite lateral in the species. So we'll have it -- we'll be able to go full maturity in these spaces.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: And if you could just introduce yourself for the record. Thank you.

MR. STOHS: This is U.S. Secret Service project lead.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER CASH: I guess I'll volunteer to ask a question. So there was a comment during the presentation, which, thanks for the presentation, but -- about some changes that were looked at, but not agreed to because it didn't -- or it now conflicted with the ballroom. Could you talk a little bit more about -- I think you were saying about Corinthian columns and -- yeah. What was the inconsistency here and what is -- do we know what the ballroom is? Because I've seen pictures online and that's -

MR. HARNER: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER CASH: -- not my understanding of the current exterior.

MR. HARNER: So I'm Jeff Harner, architect with AECOM for the project. So it

wasn't to conflict with the ballroom. It was to tie with the ballroom. So this is the rendering on the right side of the west side of the ballroom. So the Corinthian columns and square pilasters are shown on that lower right side. We are mimicking that on our exit structure.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Okay. So -- yeah. Just truthfully, I'm trying to remember because, like I said, since our last review of the ballroom, the next steps were security perimeter improvements, which I guess this is a part of. But I guess that I'm just having somewhat of a hard time picturing because, again, I think the design of the ballroom itself has evolved.

So maybe I'll just throw out there that given that it seems to be open season for tours, maybe this commission could benefit from a tour of the site, given there's so much that's been going on over there and that -- I feel like we're a couple steps behind what is otherwise public. So now that I -- it seems facility is taking shape, it would be useful for this

commission as we have more projects like this to be able to take a look at, maybe, the ballroom project itself or some of the other sites over here. So we haven't had a field trip in a while, so -- thanks.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Commissioner Cash, we could offer up a site visit associated with the Lafayette Park security enhancements as an opportunity to better understand that site and the challenges associated with that site and improvements that we're seeking as well as a broader security perimeter.

COMMISSIONER CASH: I actually think that would be very useful considering we had a lot of animated discussion last month over Lafayette Park. We have this ongoing. There's been discussion of the now defunct 17th Street site staff. So I -- I'll just throw out there, maybe request that maybe this be in our future before the weather gets too cold.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Sure.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Absolutely. Yeah.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: We were just taking questions from commissioners, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if there are any additional questions.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Move that -- I move -

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Okay.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Second, if that was a motion.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: I'm not sure.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Is there -- yeah. Is there a motion? Okay. And second. Okay.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: So now we can move into deliberations. I believe deliberations are starting with Commissioner Stidham.

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Great. Thank you for the presentation and for all of your work with us on this project. I think the project has come a long way as we've developed it with Secret Service, and we just appreciate everyone's comments and help as we move through the project. Thank you.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo?

COMMISSIONER ARGO: Hi. I have no additional questions. Look forward to moving forward on this project.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Mr. Vice Chairman?

VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: So I think this is a very strong project. It's -- you've taken a difficult security and visitor processing issue, and you've handled it in a way where a lot of it is below grade. What's above grade is restrained and appropriately for the setting. Reopening Sherman Park, removing a temporary screening, I mean, these are all going to be just huge improvements for the people that have to go there.

And another thing that I'm very sensitive to having gone through this is trying to minimize the extent to which there are lines that move out to the street and expose people from potential security risk from that perspective. So I really want to commend you for that. And I'll say it's really nice after

working on this in the first term to see yellow woods on the grounds that's -- I know they grow slowly, but they're a nice tree. So thank you for that. I noticed that. Well done. So I really have no other comments and I'm -- I wish you well on the project.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia?

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Thank you for the -- I think, you know, also what Vice Chair Levenbach said, very happy to see the progress being made. I think, you know, this is an incredible -- yet another incredible part of this overall White House reimagining that we've been seeing. I don't have any further comments and, you know, I wish you continued success as you continue to develop this initiative.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: I think it's a good project. I am also pleased to hear that -see that we have a gardener as part of our commission. I know we had a person worried about the plantings, but now we've got a tree person. Thank you very much.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes. But are they pollinator safe?

But I want to thank the team. I -I've been very appreciative of how this project has moved forward. I think that it's gone how we expect it to with each iteration coming back better than the last. So I look forward to getting the lines off of 15th Street out of the bike lanes and into a better way to get into events at the White House now and in the future.

I've stood in those lines to get into the South Lawn to the garden tours. And I know there's a lot of the day-to-day, but when we think about that two or three times a year when that -- when it opens up to the public, those security tents are bare. So I think this will be a much more fitting way to get into the grounds, even for the general public that aren't going for business at the White House. So thanks for moving this project along.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson?

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Just this is a

much needed project, so -- and I appreciate the back and forth we've had on my relatively short time here on this commission considering this. So thank you to everybody.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone?

COMMISSIONER FALCONE: I just want to associate myself with the comments of my fellow commissioners. I think it's a great project and looking forward to moving forward on it.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cozart.

COMMISSIONER COZART: Thank you to the staff for great work as always. And I associate myself with the comments of other commissioners.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch?

COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Yeah. Thank you for the presentation. I thank the team for the great work on this. I associate myself with the other comments. I think we're in a good place for this project. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: I associate myself with the other comments.

Lee, great presentation. Thank you

very much. It's going to be a beautiful addition to the White House grounds.

Thank you all for your great work to push this forward and answer all the comments and concerns. So looking forward to this beautiful building being built and on the White House grounds. Thank you.

Okay. Any other further comments or questions?

Can the secretary please confirm the motion and the second and take the vote by roll call?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes. The motion was made by Commissioner Dixon and seconded by Commissioner Stidham.

Commissioner Cozart?

COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch?

COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham?

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo?

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

Levenbach? VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Paoletta? CHAIR PAOLETTA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia? COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: (No audible

response). MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone? COMMISSIONER FALCONE: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Motion carries

unanimously. CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you. The motion is carried. Agenda Item 6C is a request to approve

preliminary site and building plans for the Naval Research Laboratory P250 Biomolecular Science and Synthetic Biology Laboratory.

Laura Shipman?

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF WAR

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

MAGAZINE ROAD, SW, WASHINGTON, DC

NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

P-250 BIOMOLECULAR SCIENCE AND

SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY LABORATORY

MS. SHIPMAN: I'm going to have to say that again. The Department of the Navy has submitted preliminary plans for the P250 building, a new biomolecular science and synthetic biology laboratory at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C.

At the preliminary review stage, the commission is focused on whether the applicant addressed the comments made during concept review, general consistency with the comprehensive plan, and a range of building and site design topics, including massing,

landscape, circulation, and architectural strategy.

The NRL is bordered by the Potomac River to the west, Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling to the north, Interstate 295 to the east, and

D.C. Water's Blue Plains treatment plant to the south. The new building will be located on the western side of the installation in an existing parking lot adjacent to the Potomac River. The development site selected conforms with guidance in the 2015 NRL Installation Master Plan approved by the commission, which encourages infill development on surface parking where feasible.

The NRL is generally characterized by low and mid-rise buildings with utilitarian design and minimal ornamentation, which is particularly exemplified by the nearby historic laboratory structures surrounding the Central Mall shown on the right. The applicant notes that the proposed project is needed because existing facilities at the NRL are World War II

era, undersized, and lack the floor-to-floor clearance and column-to-column spacing required by a modern laboratory.

These are concept plan renderings of the previous design reviewed by the commission in April of this year. As new construction visible from the river, the commission recommended that the applicant explore a more simplified and cohesive building design compatible with the architecture throughout the campus.

In response to the commission's comments and consultations with review agency staff, the applicant revised the facade design to reference the established architectural language of the NRL through proportion, color palette, materials, and architectural character. As such, staff recommends the commission commend the building redesign, which is more compatible with and reflective of the architecture throughout the campus.

Here are rendered views of the lab

building from the Potomac River. Exterior walls would be constructed with a light precast concrete panel system with curtain wall and storefront glazing systems, and a dark matte metal panel screening system at the mechanical penthouse. The site location carries potential flooding risks to the proposed structure. At concept review, the commission requested further information on the proposed flooding resilience strategies. The applicant's efforts to mitigate the flood risk include elevating the building's finished floor and associated equipment, creating an opportunity for a raised entry plaza at the west, overlooking the river with trees and seating areas.

Significant planting will also be incorporated to the rear of the building to screen mechanical equipment from the green space associated with the historic Quarters A and B, to the east of the project site. At concept review, the commission recommended that the site design incorporate improved pedestrian pathways

and sidewalks to align with installation master plan guidance. In response, the design incorporates a shaded pathway along the western edge of the site parallel to the river, providing a pedestrian connection to the Central Mall area. Additional sidewalks, crosswalks, and pathways are also provided around the site, including a connection provided between the historic quarters green space to the east of the site and the building entry plaza and riverfront to the west.

The NRL is one of many significant shoreline properties along the Potomac River noted in the comprehensive plan where efforts to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff are critical to protect the region's waterways and water resources. In response to commission comments at concept review, the preliminary plan submission includes a new green space fronting the river, increased planting and vegetative screening, and pervious concrete pavers in all the parking stalls.

The applicant also updated the proposed plant palette in accordance with the NCPC pollinator's best practices, resource guide, and in response to public comment. The landscape approach balances pollinator habitat goals with practical site management considerations, including compliance with anti-terrorism force protection requirements that limit the use of taller woody shrubs and perennial plantings in certain areas.

Overall, the applicant has successfully addressed the commission's concept plan comments in a manner consistent with the installation master plan and comprehensive plan policy guidance. Therefore, staff recommends the commission approve the preliminary site and building plans for the new P250 laboratory on the NRL campus. And that concludes my presentation. Representatives from the applicant team are also available to answer any questions from the commission. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you, Laura.

Is there a motion to approve

preliminary site and building plans for the Naval Research Laboratory P250 Biomolecular Science and Synthetic Biology Laboratory?

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: I motion.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Second? Okay.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: Second.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: I'll note -- I'll now open it up for the commission for discussion. I will start the deliberations with Commissioner Bruch.

COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Thank you for the presentation, two for one day. I think you guys have done a -- or -- team has done a phenomenal job with the going back and readdressing those issues that were brought up before. I think the architecture looks great. I think all of your flora looks fine. You've got some pollinators in there, I noticed. So I think we should be in good shape to get this started, get this built along the river because I know NRL needs this facility. Thank you.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Commissioner Stidham?

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: A great response to comments that you received. I think it looks great. It fits better on the campus. So nice job and thank you for the presentation.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Commissioner Levenbach -- or Vice Chairman Levenbach?

VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: So I don't have a whole lot to add. I think the redesign is -looks really nice and I appreciate it being responsive to some of the comments about a more neoclassic design per the EO. And so I want to thank you for your efforts on that. And it just looks a lot more consistent with the NRL campus. So thanks for that, and look forward to seeing it move forward.

COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the team for all the work being done. I think things are coming along very nicely. I don't have any -- I don't have further comments to add, but I appreciate all the work.

COMMISSIONER DIXON: I like the new design. I did like the old ones pretty much, but it looks good in my neighborhood, about five -- ten blocks from my house, so I like it. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER CASH: Well, I'll go a little bit farther than Commissioner Dixon. I think the old design was fine. I think the new design -- I'm glad they were able to hopefully save some money by getting the Dirksen Senate Office Building renderings and just, like, kind of retreading that.

But considering nine out of ten people will never see this facility in person because it's a secure facility, I'm not going to complain too much about it. But I think it's fine. It's -- I think the former version was probably fine and maybe worked better for the program, but I'm not going to try and guess what the program is exactly here past what we heard last time. So if they're happy, I'm happy. So thanks.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: For our online commissioners, Commissioner Argo?

COMMISSIONER ARGO: I associate myself with the prior comments by the commissioners, and happy to see this -- our opportunity to finish this project up for these folks. Thank you.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson?

COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: I appreciate that the applicant listened and came back with changes based on the feedback we gave them. I think that's a constructive process. And ready to see this move forward.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone?

COMMISSIONER FALCONE: I appreciate the staff for the presentation as always. I think the redesign looks great and appreciate the applicant taking our perspectives into consideration. And happy to see this moving forward.

COMMISSIONER COZART: And, Commissioner Cozart?

Thanks to the staff for the analysis, and thanks to the team for the responsiveness to the commission comments.

CHAIR PAOLETTA: Great work, Laura and NCPC staff. Thank you for the responsiveness to the comments. I wasn't here when it was first reviewed, but I think it looks a lot better. And I'm glad we're moving forward. Thank you.

Can the secretary please confirm the motion and the second and take the roll call vote?

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Yes.

The motion was made by Commissioner Ingrassia and seconded by -- the first name I wrote down was Commissioner Dixon.

Commissioner Cozart?

COMMISSIONER COZART: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Bruch?

COMMISSIONER BRUCH: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Stidham?

COMMISSIONER STIDHAM: Yes.

MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Argo?

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

Levenbach? VICE CHAIR LEVENBACH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Chairman Paoletta? CHAIR PAOLETTA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Ingrassia? COMMISSIONER INGRASSIA: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Dixon? COMMISSIONER DIXON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Cash? COMMISSIONER CASH: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Henderson? COMMISSIONER HENDERSON: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Commissioner Falcone? COMMISSIONER FALCONE: Yes. MS. HOTTEL-COX: Motion carries

unanimously. CHAIR PAOLETTA: Thank you. The motion is carried. Are there any further comments or questions? No? Okay.

This concludes our open session agenda. Our next regular commission meeting will be on Thursday, November 5th. If there's no other business, the session is now adjourned.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 3:39 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.

Allegra Chilstrom

· ·_______________________