The meeting was convened at 401 F Street NW, Room 311, at 9:04 a.m.
Members present:
Hon. Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., Chairman
Hon. James C. McCrery II, Vice Chairman
Hon. Chamberlain Harris
Hon. Roger Kimball
Hon. Pamela Hughes Patenaude
Hon. Matthew Taylor
Staff present:
Thomas Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Christopher Berger
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 18 June meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the June 2026 meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance, and that no questions or comments had been received. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission approved the minutes. Secretary Luebke noted that the minutes would be made available on the Commission's website.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings: 17 September, 15 October, and 19 November 2026. He said that these dates are consistent with the calendar published at the beginning of the year, and that there would be no Commission meeting in August.
C. Proposed 2027 schedule of meetings and submission deadlines for the Commission and Old Georgetown Board. Secretary Luebke presented the proposed schedule of meetings and submission deadlines for calendar year 2027. The Commission meeting dates are scheduled to be the third Thursday of each month, with no meeting in August or December: 15 January, 19 February, 19 March, 15 April, 20 May, 18 June, 15 July, 16 September, 21 October, and 18 November 2027. The meeting dates for the Old Georgetown Board would be the first Thursday of each month, with no meeting in January or August. He noted that the schedule for any meeting could be adjusted if necessary; past reasons have included a weather event, government shutdown, and lack of a quorum. Upon a motion by Chairman Cook with second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission adopted the proposed schedule.
D. Reappointment of Amy Weinstein, FAIA, to the Old Georgetown Board. Secretary Luebke presented the reappointment of Amy Weinstein, FAIA, to the Old Georgetown Board (OGB) for a third three-year term, from September 2026 through July 2029; she was first appointed to the OGB in 2020. He summarized Ms. Weinstein’s four-decade architectural career, which includes private practice, teaching, and professional peer review. Her built projects for government, institutional, and residential clients have been recognized by more than sixty design awards. She served for two decades as a peer reviewer for federal projects through the Design Excellence Program of the General Services Administration, as well as for seven years on the D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board. A native Washingtonian, she received both her undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University of Pennsylvania. She has been a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects since 1994 and was honored in 2023 with the local AIA chapter’s Centennial Medal. Upon a motion by Chairman Cook with second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission approved the reappointment of Ms. Weinstein.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of each document were circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting.
Appendix I – Government Submissions (Consent Calendar): Mr. Fox said that the consent calendar includes six items and that no substantive changes had been made to the draft circulated to the Commission. He also reported the delegated final approval of two projects, which conform with the previously approved concept designs: Drew Elementary School, and the new garage on the St. Elizabeths West Campus, now the headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix includes thirteen items; there are also two cases that will be considered on the agenda (SL 26-114 and SL 26-126). She said two cases are being held open for review in a future month (SL 26-110 and SL 26-116) and two recommendations were changed to no objection following revisions by the applicants (SL 26-105 and SL 26-121). She said staff is waiting for supplemental materials for five cases and expects to continue working with the applicants to resolve minor issues. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission approved the Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Mr. Berger said that the appendix includes thirty-six items, and that there were no changes to the draft circulated to the Commission. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission approved the Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider items II.D, II.E, and II.F.1. Secretary Luebke said the Commission had identified these submissions as ones that could be approved without presentations.
D. Smithsonian Institution
CFA 16/JUL/26-4, National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, 3001 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Arabian leopard habitat. Final. (Previous: CFA 19/MAR/26-3) Secretary Luebke introduced the final design submission for a new habitat to be constructed at the National Zoo for Arabian leopards; he noted the Commission’s consensus to approve the project without a formal presentation. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission approved the final design.
E. D.C. Department of General Services
CFA 16/JUL/26-6, Whittier Elementary School, 6201 5th Street, NW. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Final. (Previous: CFA 21/MAY/26-3) Secretary Luebke introduced the final design submission for renovations and additions to Whittier Elementary School. Chairman Cook commented that the project looks great, and he offered a motion to approve the final design; upon second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission approved the final design.
F. D.C. Department of Buildings—Shipstead-Luce Act
1. SL 26-114, 2121 Virginia Avenue, NW. New 9-story residential building. Permit. (Previous: SL 26-044) Secretary Luebke introduced the permit submission for a new residential building on Virginia Avenue in Foggy Bottom, near the Pan American Health Organization and the U.S. Department of State. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission approved final permit design.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.1.
B. Department of the Interior / Executive Office of the President /
National Park Service
1. CFA 16/JUL/26-1, Sherman Park / President’s Park, E Street and East Executive Avenue, NW. Visitor screening facility and landscape. Revised concept. (Previous: CFA 16/APR/26-2) Secretary Luebke introduced the revised concept design submission for a new visitor screening facility for the White House complex, to be located in Sherman Park, south of the Treasury Building. He noted that the Commission had reviewed a prior design in a different location, but that the large utility line beneath the corner of the park is located six feet further north and shallower than documented, creating conflicts with the ramping needed to reach the below-grade elevation of the previous design. As a result, the revised submission proposes locating an above-grade entrance pavilion on the west side of the park; as previously proposed, the screening component of the project would be beneath the park, and the exit pavilion would be between the Treasury Building’s south entrance and East Executive Avenue.
Secretary Luebke said the Commission had approved the earlier concept for this facility at its April 2026 meeting, expressing support for the program and providing comments on topics including using a running bond pattern for the stone coursing and considering the reuse of salvaged columns from the demolished East Wing on the below-grade entrance portal. In the revised design, visitors would enter through Sherman Park using a new walkway, with the existing historic walkways either remaining or being rebuilt in place; visitors would then descend to the below-grade screening facility via an interior grand stair or elevators. He said the new entrance pavilion is designed in a Classically derived style, with an entrance portico on the east featuring square Corinthian columns supporting an entablature and balustrade, and a sequence of entrance doors between Corinthian pilasters on the wall behind. He noted that design revisions to the exit pavilion include a more emphatic cornice and a less prominent parapet, large single-light windows in lieu of the previously approved subdivided lights, and the addition of an oval transition room at the connection between the underground screening area and the passage to the exit pavilion. He introduced Andy Stohs, senior technical advisor at the U.S. Secret Service, to present the project.
Mr. Stohs said that for the past twenty years, the White House has accommodated visitors with ID checks conducted in trailers. He said that the project team studied various options for a new screening facility, ultimately selecting a below-grade entrance pavilion embedded in the park’s southern hillside. However, continued survey work revealed that the below-grade utility lines were much closer to the proposed facility location than what was documented, creating conflicts that could not be resolved in the selected design. Therefore, a new above-grade pavilion option has been developed. He asked Jeff Harner of AECOM to present the new design.
Mr. Harner said an above-grade pavilion in the southern quadrant of the park had also been considered; however, it was determined that challenges related to blocking viewsheds and other issues discussed with the consulting parties at Section 106 historic preservation meetings had resulted in the current proposal to locate the pavilion in the western quadrant of the park. While the entrance would now be above grade, the screening areas of the facility would remain below grade. The new entrance pavilion would face the Sherman Monument, with visitors approaching from the east through the park, creating a more dignified entrance with the White House Grounds in the background rather than the Treasury Building. The historic pathways in the park would be maintained, with an additional pathway added leading to the building’s entrance. The exit pavilion to the north would remain in the same location within East Executive Avenue.
Mr. Harner said there is land on the west side of the park that is available to build on while still maintaining a square shape for the remainder of the park; the proposed pavilion, rectangular in plan, would be oriented north–south, and the distance from the Sherman Monument to 15th Street would equal the distance from the new building face to the monument, thereby maintaining the park’s symmetry. Specimen trees are proposed to flank the entrance, with street trees along East Executive Avenue buffering the building. Existing historic walls would be maintained or rebuilt.
Mr. Harner said that most of the previously established footprint for the below-grade screening area remains in the current proposal, with the entire west quadrant of the park being excavated for construction. Visitors would enter the park and approach the pavilion from the northeast and southeast corners at 15th Street; previously, the only approach to the facility was on the south side of the park. Queuing would be allowed within the park, rather than overflowing onto 15th Street, with an initial check point at which a National Park Service guide would confirm visitor clearance and appointment status. Upon entering the pavilion, visitors would pass through pre-function space and a first ID check before descending via a grand stair or elevator to a lower-level space with 12’ ceilings. Once underground, visitors would pass through pre-screening and primary screening; the layout for this space is intended to be as open and flexible as possible, with only four support columns proposed, accommodating future changes in Secret Service equipment and technology. Visitors would then proceed to an oval-shaped room and turn north, moving through a passage to the exit pavilion, finally ascending via escalator or elevator to the ground level.
Mr. Harner said the entrance pavilion would be composed of three volumes, with a larger central volume and two subordinate wings, which are intended to reduce the apparent scale of the building while giving appropriate prominence to the entrance. He said that “Sierra White” granite is proposed for the primary cladding material, and that the design uses a classically inspired vocabulary, including square columns, an entablature, and a balustrade for the central volume. Presidential seals would be etched into the facade of each wing. Square columns in a Corinthian order are proposed, matching the square Corinthian columns proposed for the base of the new White House ballroom previously approved by the Commission. He said the design is aligned with the vision of President Trump, with whom the design team has worked closely. He noted that other column options had been considered, including a round column in the Doric order, but these options did not establish as strong a relationship to the ballroom as the proposed square Corinthian columns. In addition, a stairwell providing Secret Service access and required emergency egress from below grade, previously located in the southwest corner of the park, has been repositioned to the south quadrant.
Mr. Harner said the plan for the exit pavilion had been slightly altered, with the elevator and escalators shifted approximately 10’ to the south to create more space at the top of the escalators for visitor circulation. For the exterior design, the parapet has been lowered as much as possible, and square Corinthian columns have been introduced to maintain architectural continuity with the entrance pavilion and ballroom. On the south facade, freestanding columns frame the entrance and single engaged columns are proposed for the corners. Within the regular rhythm of pilasters, large, single-light windows without muntins are proposed, which are intended to maximize light into the escalators and to provide an unobstructed view of the new ballroom upon exit; blind panels would be used for areas where Secret Service equipment, elevators, or stairs would be located.
Chairman Cook thanked the presentation team and welcomed questions from the Commission members. Mr. McCrery asked about a line visible on the plan that appears to stop and then continue off-screen, and whether it connects to the building. Mr. Harner clarified that this is the existing fence line and that it would not connect to the proposed building; he said the orange lines on the plan represent existing security fencing, while purple lines indicate staff and contractor pathways. Mr. McCrery asked whether the fence line would be pulled to the corner; Mr. Harner said the team would work with the Secret Service on this, and he said it was likely the fence would be pulled to the corner to define that edge.
Secretary Luebke noted that one letter of formal testimony had been received, and he asked whether the Chairman wished to hear public testimony before the Commission’s discussion. Chairman Cook indicated that anyone wishing to speak publicly should be heard first. Secretary Luebke reported that no members of the public had signed up to speak, and he proceeded to read the submitted letter into the record.
Secretary Luebke said the letter, submitted by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, expresses support for the revised concept design. He said the letter highlights the collaboration and commitment of the National Park Service in leading the Section 106 consultation process under the National Historic Preservation Act, noting that the National Trust had participated directly as a consulting party and was given the opportunity to propose alternatives and modifications to avoid and minimize the undertaking’s adverse effects to historic resources. The letter states that the revised concept plans reflect the comments made by the consulting parties; the resulting design has reduced adverse effects to the historic character of the Sherman Monument, President’s Park, and the surrounding historic districts. He said the letter concludes by commending the National Park Service for the ongoing consultation process and expresses the National Trust’s intention to continue participating as plans are further refined.
Chairman Cook then invited comments from Commission members. Mr. McCrery said elevations of all facades of the entrance pavilion should be developed for a future submission, as the presentation had included only the east elevation. He strongly encouraged the design team to study including windows on the south and north facades to give relief to the blank walls, which he said give the building a mausoleum-like appearance that would not be appropriate given its significance and location. He said that, in particular, having windows on the south facade would provide daylight for the grand stair, dramatically improving the quality of that interior space.
Mr. McCrery addressed the proposed masonry treatment, noting that the stone as rendered appears to be in stacked coursing, which he said is not seen in classical architecture. In addition, he said the size of the individual stone blocks appears out of scale relative to the building, and he recommended using at least eight stone courses set in a running bond. He also addressed the facade designs of the flanking wings, commenting that the plane change at the corners, which are topped by oddly appearing chimney or smokestack forms, should be extended so that the wings would read as powerful bookends to the central composition rather than as independent elements pulling away from the center. He said the current treatment creates visual inconsistency with the larger design intent. Mr. Harner acknowledged that the intent has always been to use stone set in a running bond, and he agreed that the stone size needs to be reduced so that the running bond pattern is legible. Mr. McCrery noted that the issue would be apparent wherever the stone coursing reads as stacked and gridded. Mr. Harner agreed, noting that the proximity of the doors and the limited space between them would cause the pattern to read incorrectly if the stones were too large.
Regarding the exit pavilion, Mr. McCrery said that the previously approved design had included windows with muntins, and that it was not appropriate for the design team to remove them without the Commission’s consent, as their inclusion had been part of the prior approval. He added that the reduction in light transmission caused by muntins would be minimal and does not justify their removal. He also observed that the window type appears to have changed to a single pane of Modernist plate glass, whereas the previously approved windows had been styled more appropriately as double-hung units with divided lights. He said that the proportions of the current window openings are those of punched openings rather than hung windows, and that this is inconsistent with the rules of Classical architecture, which apply not only to the general compositional framework of a building but to every level of detail, from the largest elements to the smallest. He also noted that the doorway openings require architraves, which would also help resolve the stone coursing issue he had identified earlier. In general, he encouraged the use of correct Classical details rather than Modernist approximations of them.
Mr. McCrery also commented that the rifles and fixed bayonets held by the four statues at the corners of the Sherman Monument had been removed, which he said was unfortunate. He said this project represents an opportunity to restore those elements, observing that the permanent presence of Secret Service in the park would effectively eliminate the risk of vandalism that had led to their removal.
Mr. Cook asked whether any renderings had been developed showing how the grand stair and window treatment would work together. Mr. Harner said such renderings were not part of the current presentation, but the team is actively working on them as part of the full project design. Mr. Cook asked whether those would be available at the next review; Mr. Harner confirmed they would. Mr. Cook observed that a raised platform appears to be proposed at the entrance doors, and he asked whether the design team had considered either reducing its height or adding a step. Mr. Harner clarified that this element is an 8” curb, not the edge of a raised platform, and that the grade is the same on both sides despite its appearance in the rendering.
Secretary Luebke said that given the apparent consensus of support for the revised location and overall design approach—as well as the lack of a Commission meeting in August—the Commission may wish to consider approving the revised concept and delegating the final review to the staff.
Ms. Patenaude suggested approving the concept and delegating further review of the design details to staff. Chairman Cook concurred with the general approach and asked Mr. McCrery whether they might assist staff in reviewing the details, referring to the sketches Mr. McCrery had developed during the meeting. Mr. McCrery agreed, indicating his willingness to support a staff-delegated final review. Chairman Cook noted the importance of getting the design right and said both the Chairman and Vice Chairman would make themselves available to assist. Secretary Luebke noted that Mr. McCrery’s sketches would be incorporated into the staff review process.
Ms. Harris offered a motion to approve the revised concept design with the comments provided, and to delegate the final review to the staff; upon second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission adopted this action.
B. Department of the Interior / Executive Office of the President / National Park Service
2. CFA 16/JUL/26-2, Lafayette Square, Pennsylvania Avenue and H Street, NW, between 15th and 17th Streets, NW. Permanent perimeter security fencing. Concept. Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design for permanent perimeter security fencing at Lafayette Square. He said the Secret Service is proposing to control public access to the park primarily through a fence enclosure that is intended to remain open under normal circumstances, with gates that could be closed to establish a restricted area around the White House complex when security conditions require it.
Secretary Luebke said Lafayette Square is an eight-acre public park located directly north of the White House, across Pennsylvania Avenue, featuring an equestrian statue of President Andrew Jackson at its center and, at its corners, statues of four European generals who assisted the United States in the Revolutionary War. The parcel was part of the original President’s Park reservation in the L’Enfant Plan, extending south from H Street to Constitution Avenue, between Madison and Jackson Places, NW. Circulation within the park is defined by a mid-19th-century plan featuring a large peripheral oval walkway with interior paths connecting the central statue to those at each corner. He noted that the park has long served as an open public space and, given its prominent location and views to the White House, has historically been a setting for First Amendment activities.
Secretary Luebke said the proposal would enclose the entire park with an approximately 10’-tall metal fence, with the primary gates centered on the 16th Street axis; these would normally be left open to allow access. Secondary gates would be at the park’s corners and facing Madison and Jackson Places. He asked Andy Stohs, senior technical advisor at the U.S. Secret Service, to present the project.
Mr. Stohs said Lafayette Square serves as a park space on the north side of the White House complex, with Pennsylvania Avenue dividing the park from the executive mansion’s north lawn. He said the site contains five statues, two fountains, numerous benches, and pathways throughout, and is used as a thoroughfare by tourists, visitors having lunch, and White House staff, as well as a vehicular thoroughfare for maintenance and operations. He said the park is flanked by the New Executive Office Building (NEOB) to the west, the Howard T. Markey National Courts Building to the east, the main Treasury Building to the southeast, and the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB) to the southwest. He noted that a variety of users, including cyclists, pedestrians, staff, and tourists, converge on the space daily.
Mr. Stohs said the primary goal of the proposal is to replace the numerous temporary barriers currently required for security with a more permanent, elegant, and contextually appropriate barrier that can remain mostly open under normal conditions but be closed rapidly when necessary. He said any solution must account for the full range of circulation patterns to be effective for both the public and staff. He cited the historical precedent for a fence at the park: an ornate Victorian fence that existed around the perimeter before being removed in the late 19th century, as well as existing vehicle bollards to the north that were installed following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. He asked Richard Macauley, chief of police at the Secret Service, to address the operational need for the proposal.
Mr. Macauley said that in his more than ten years commanding operations at the White House complex, he has been directly involved in managing over 1,500 demonstrations—both planned and spontaneous, ranging from small groups of ten people to crowds of 50,000 or more. He described multiple spontaneous mass incursions in which officers and members of the public were injured when demonstrations escalated, with participants throwing unanchored bike racks, frozen water bottles, and broken sidewalk bricks, and causing damage to park features, all while the Secret Service, Metropolitan Police, and U.S. Park Police worked to protect the public’s right to peacefully exercise its First Amendment rights. He said that the Secret Service’s mission is to provide a safe and secure environment for the White House, the president, protectees, facilities, and the public, and that its officers are highly trained in crowd psychology and de-escalation techniques. He expressed his strong belief, based on 27 years of law enforcement experience, that a fixed, aesthetically appropriate security barrier similar to the new White House fence would allow officers to manage the space without the use of force and without law enforcement being placed face-to-face with those who come to enjoy the park or exercise their First Amendment rights.
Mr. Macauley described two specific incidents. On May 29, 2020, a peaceful demonstration grew to 5,000 people in approximately 45 minutes through the use of social media, resulting in school children being caught in the crowd and 24 officers being hospitalized that night. On October 21, 2021, a peaceful demonstration involving one group of protesters alongside school groups viewing the White House required the use of force to separate demonstrators from children, which escalated the situation and ultimately led to the installation of the temporary barriers currently in place. He noted that these temporary barriers remain a problem because they are not anchored and can be lifted and pushed against officers and peaceful demonstrators.
Mr. Stohs reiterated that a permanently fixed barrier is a critical operational goal, as temporary fences can require 70 or more hours to procure and install under contract, while protests and unlawful actions can develop rapidly through social media. He stated that the goal is to create infrastructure that is befitting of the park and consistent with the aesthetic guidance of the Commission.
Mr. Stohs said the design process began with the original Victorian perimeter fence as a guiding precedent for alignment. He said the preferred fence alignment would extend around the full perimeter of the park, protecting all statues and the lodge, which has also been vandalized during protests. This alignment would allow the park to remain open when only road closures are needed, accommodate numerous gates to preserve circulation, and enable rapid closure and reopening in response to security incidents. He noted that gates would be located at every sidewalk crossing, with particular attention to widening the north and south entries to minimize impact on pedestrian flow. The existing vehicular bollard line along the north edge of the park would be incorporated into the fence alignment, with the gates set back south to the existing bollard line and new bollards installed in front to maintain a consistent secure perimeter, creating an inset entry condition set back from H Street.
Mr. Stohs described an alternate alignment that would follow the elliptical interior walkway rather than the full park perimeter, leaving two statues and the lodge outside the enclosed area but providing more space to the north. He noted that the team has documented the benefits and drawbacks of both alignments and has engaged in numerous conversations with the staff of stakeholder agencies, and is now seeking direct input from the Commission on the preferred alignment and fence character. He then introduced Alan Harwood, vice president and principal at AECOM, to continue the presentation.
Mr. Harwood noted that he is representing AECOM and its design partner Rogers Partners Architects & Urban Designers. He presented a series of cross section drawings depicting the north–south spine of Lafayette Square, illustrating a 10’ grade change from H Street down to Pennsylvania Avenue. Using view cone diagrams overlaid on the H Street elevation, he said the drawings demonstrate that the proposed fence on the south side of Lafayette Square along Pennsylvania Avenue would fall below the line of sight from H Street, and that views of the White House from H Street would not be obstructed by the proposed fencing.
Mr. Harwood said that the area around Lafayette Square features a wide variety of fences and gates of varying scale, proportion, transparency, and detailing; the goal is to establish a more unified design vocabulary appropriate to the site that also meets security requirements. He noted that the historic perimeter fence offers inspiration but also limitations, as certain features—specifically the dog bars at the base—present climb-assist challenges that are incompatible with modern security requirements. The design approach is therefore to adapt, rather than replicate, the historic character.
Mr. Harwood said the preferred fence elements include metal pickets and metal posts, with masonry piers used to mark entrances, and decorative elements including finials on the posts and pickets and small bosses at the middle of the pickets. He noted that the fence base must be kept as low as possible, as the 8’ standoff dimension is measured above it. For the spacing of the pickets, he said that 3” was found to be visually heavy and 5” presented safety concerns; therefore, 4” spacing is recommended as the effective balance between openness and security. He said the new fence posts would be integrated with the existing vehicle bollards along H Street as a means of reducing visual clutter and creating a more cohesive streetscape, noting that this approach applies along H Street except at 16th Street, where the fence and bollards would be separate.
Regarding the pavement within the site, Mr. Harwood said that the park features a wide variety of existing materials, colors, patterns, and maintenance requirements—brick, stone, and asphalt in various patterns—that lack visual coherence. He said multiple paving options were evaluated based on their durability, visual quality, historic compatibility, product sizes, material sources, maintenance requirements, and security considerations; he noted that larger stone units are preferred because they are not usable as projectiles. He concluded that the design concept aims to balance aesthetic concerns with security requirements, with the intent that security infrastructure remains secondary to the essential character of the landscape, and that key views and the historic setting would be preserved.
Chairman Cook invited questions from Commission members. Ms. Patenaude asked if the presentation includes a rendering showing the proposed 16th Street gates in a closed position. Mr. Stohs responded that he did not have such a rendering but that in the alternate alignment, the center panel between the inner two columns would approximate the appearance of the fence with all gates closed along that frontage.
Secretary Luebke then summarized the more than 100 public comments received by the Commission in response to the project. He described the predominant themes as opposition to what commenters characterized as permanent closure of the square, with arguments centering on the park’s historic role as a venue for First Amendment activities and assembly, its status as public land, and its use for that purpose over more than a century. He said that the commenters raise secondary concerns related to aesthetic impacts.
Secretary Luebke said there is one letter in general support of the proposal, received from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which characterized the park as a site of preeminent historic significance. He said the letter cites the park’s associations with the preservation movement’s history, including First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy’s work in the 1960s to save the surrounding buildings, and notes that the current security configuration represents a mismatched collection of bollards and improvised barriers that detracts from the historic character of the site. The letter states that a cohesive, well-designed permanent fence would be an improvement over the status quo. The National Trust, which owns the adjacent Decatur House on Jackson Place, also asks that the National Park Service continue working with the Trust and the White House Historical Association on access solutions to this property, and requests additional renderings of the fence’s visual impact and clearer information on where peaceful protests would be permitted.
Secretary Luebke then read from two letters representing opposition to the project. He said that the first letter, from John B. Sanders, states that the proposed fence would suppress free speech and peaceful demonstration in a key public forum protected by tradition and the Constitution; that it would detract from the experience of visiting the White House; and that it would block convenient pedestrian and bicycle passage through a space where law enforcement had previously balanced liberty and security effectively. Mr. Luebke said the second letter, from Jack Farrell, describes Lafayette Square as an iconic symbol of American democracy and a venue for the right to dissent, and concludes that the proposal would cause irreparable damage to both the historic and civic significance of the site and should be rejected.
Secretary Luebke then introduced Nord Wennerstrom, communications director of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, to testify on behalf of his organization.
Mr. Wennerstrom said he represents the Cultural Landscape Foundation, an education and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. He expressed concern that the Commission’s review of this project had not been preceded by or run parallel with the Section 106 review process under the National Historic Preservation Act—a process that identifies adverse effects, engages consulting parties and subject-area experts, and can result in substantial changes to project designs. He noted that the Lafayette Square Historic District was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1970, with an amended designation in August 2022; that the park was closed for construction beginning in January 2026; that a Section 106 review for Lafayette Square was only initiated on April 23rd of this year; and that no formal consultation meetings have been held. He said that as a result, the significant design proposals currently before the Commission had not benefited from preservation expertise on how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on the park’s historic visual and spatial relationships. He noted that the Cultural Landscape Foundation had served as a consulting party on the White House visitor screening facility reviewed earlier in the meeting, and that consulting party input meaningfully impacted that project’s design evolution. He questioned whether fencing was the right approach, pointing to the solution developed for the Washington Monument grounds as an example of security infrastructure that avoids fencing by using a site-specific curvilinear seat wall with generous sight lines. He acknowledged that this may not be the appropriate solution at Lafayette Square, but suggested the question was worth asking.
Mr. Wennerstrom said that the Commission’s current review appears circumscribed—limited in large part to choosing between fence design alternatives and paving patterns—and that while a fence has not existed at Lafayette Square since 1889, its former presence is being cited as sufficient precedent. He asked the Commission to first acknowledge that the park, set within the larger 47.7-acre Lafayette Square Historic District, is significant, and to recognize that decisions made here affect not just the park but the broader historic district. He described the park’s foremost significance as a place to peacefully assemble and petition for redress of grievances, calling it the equivalent of Speaker’s Corner in London’s Hyde Park. He noted that the amended landmark designation characterizes the district as nationally significant for its symbolic association with and proximity to the American presidency and executive power in a democratic republic. He concluded by suggesting that a more holistic approach might address security needs while keeping the park open and porous, and he noted that the district’s significance derives not only from its historical role but from its ongoing role in American life.
Chairman Cook then invited comments from the Commission members. Mr. McCrery asked whether the Secret Service had engaged with the Cultural Landscape Foundation, noting that the National Trust for Historic Preservation had been contacted and was broadly supportive. Mr. Stohs responded that the Section 106 process is being initiated, and that the team has been working with Commission staff, the D.C. Historic Preservation Office, and other stakeholders. He added that there were capacity constraints in initiating all required processes through the National Park Service. He said that the design concept is fairly straightforward—a fence somewhere in the park—and that the team had studied numerous alignments over the past five years, most of which did not meet operational security needs; the team had concluded that the two options presented were the best solutions for both the Park Service and Secret Service missions. He said the team seeks feedback on fence character priorities as they refine the design.
Mr. McCrery said the security challenges at the Washington Monument are very different from those at Lafayette Square, while agreeing that the Washington Monument solution is exceptionally well designed. He noted his appreciation for the poetic use of what is essentially a ha-ha around the Washington Monument—a landscape feature George Washington used on his own grounds—but said this particular approach would not be workable at Lafayette Square because there is insufficient landscape to accommodate it without tearing up the entire park.
Mr. McCrery asked whether there is existing fencing shown on the existing conditions diagram and whether those additional fence segments were part of the current proposal. Mr. Stohs clarified that the diagram depicts the temporary measures in place several months ago, and that those elements are not part of the current proposal but were shown to give a complete picture of all existing measures. He noted that a post-and-chain solution in some areas had been studied but is not being proposed. He said that the area near the NEOB contains active egress routes for staff and protectees, and that the team is working to minimize vehicular-pedestrian conflicts in those areas. He also confirmed that only the fence is being proposed in this submission.
Mr. McCrery asked whether the Secret Service had studied a simpler alignment, with a single fence line at the north and the rest of the park open, rather than a configuration that encloses the entire park. Mr. Stohs responded that this option had been studied, but that the team concluded a northern-only alignment would result in more frequent full park closures, since road closures and other incidents would require closing the entire park rather than allowing it to remain open while closing only the roadways. He said that a perimeter enclosure with intermediate closure options would provide more operational flexibility and a better visitor experience overall.
Mr. McCrery asked whether it was accurate to say that the full closure scenario is the least common, a partial closure is the second most common, and an open park is the most common condition. Mr. Macauley responded that the Secret Service handles approximately 200 unscheduled demonstrations per year, as well as hundreds of security closures based on various operations. He said the intermediate partial closure option was specifically designed to provide the public with more access—for example, during spring when school groups are present—rather than requiring full park closures.
Mr. Cook asked whether running a fence along H Street and along the east and west ends of Pennsylvania Avenue would meet the Secret Service’s needs without enclosing the entire park. He cited his experience living near fenced urban squares in Paris, London, and New York—specifically Gramercy Park—noting that such configurations are pleasant and effective without encumbering the various parks. He also noted that a small fire had been set at St. John’s Church at 16th and H Street during civil unrest, and he made reference to earlier comments comparing Lafayette Square to the Washington Monument grounds, acknowledging that the security context of the White House is fundamentally different. He emphasized that the risk of the White House complex being overrun is a real concern, noting that he is friends with the grandchildren of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and that when they were staying at the White House with President Richard Nixon’s daughters, they were terrified of the Vietnam War protests outside. Mr. Macauley responded that the project team had studied a Pennsylvania Avenue gate solution, but it had encountered difficulty developing a sufficiently elegant solution that would also accommodate the removability requirement for the Inauguration Day parade, when bollards must be removed and then reinstalled. He said this option is still being studied and would represent additional scope beyond the current proposal, but he acknowledged it would be helpful. He said that the team decided to present the park solution first, as it was the most fully developed proposal, and that the Pennsylvania Avenue option remains a topic of active study.
Mr. Cook asked whether approval of a Pennsylvania Avenue solution, in addition to or instead of the park enclosure, would better serve the Secret Service’s needs. Mr. Macauley responded affirmatively, confirming that a similar concept—enclosing the immediate approaches to the White House—is used around Buckingham Palace, and that such a solution would allow the east and west sides to be closed along with the north, using minimal force deescalation rather than the more disruptive measures deployed during the events of 2020.
Mr. Cook observed that the original White House fence featured well-proportioned masonry piers that were replaced with larger ones when the fence was made taller. He suggested that there is an opportunity to restore those design qualities in the new gates, particularly the masonry piers and lanterns, while running a simpler fence line directly along H Street. He indicated that this approach would likely receive Commission approval if it better served the Secret Service’s needs, and that it would leave the park feeling wide open while simplifying the overall security infrastructure.
Mr. Cook also asked about the broader President’s Park context, noting that Congress had suggested a site within the Ellipse for the Adams Family Memorial, and he asked whether there was a master plan for the Ellipse, which has been closed for construction. Mr. Stohs said that the Park Service considered proposals for the Ellipse some years ago, but that operations have since changed, and any public building proposed for the site would require revisions to that plan. He said that the current intent for the Ellipse is to maintain vehicle standoff through bollards, with the ability to control access for special events, and that there is no current plan for a permanent pedestrian barrier around the Ellipse. He noted that additional temporary fencing exists around the First Division Monument, the Treasury, and the EEOB as longer-term fencing solutions for those buildings are developed, but that these are lower-priority items given that the temporary measures there are adequate for the near term.
Chairman Cook emphasized the Commission’s interest in helping address the broader security fencing needs of the complex over time, noting that the temporary barriers are not appropriate in character for such places, and indicating the Commission’s readiness to assist as those projects move forward.
Mr. McCrery asked if fences and gates at the ends of Pennsylvania Avenue could be designed to accommodate the inaugural parade’s removability requirement; Mr. Stohs confirmed this. Mr. McCrery asked whether Mr. Cook’s suggested approach—a fence along H Street without the full park enclosure—would be preferable to the two alignments presented. Mr. Stohs indicated that this is what the presenters had said. Mr. Macauley clarified that the partial closure configuration is actually the preferred operational scenario, because it allows the public to remain in the park without requiring full evacuations for motorcades and similar events. He explained that partial closure would also allow scheduled, permitted demonstrations to remain in place, which is why the southern fence loop is operationally valuable. He confirmed, however, that a Pennsylvania Avenue solution would be a desirable additional element.
Secretary Luebke raised a concern about the relationship of the proposed fence to the corner statues, noting that all of the alignments studied would place a tall fence in close proximity to the statues at the corners, which would significantly affect the presentation of those works of public art and create an unfortunate visual condition. He said CFA staff had raised this in informal consultation meetings and had asked the team to explore ways to make the fence feel less enclosing at those corners. Regarding the current review, he suggested a consensus had emerged to recommend fencing all the way around the exterior of the park, including the corners where the statues are located, rather than creating an awkwardly close relationship of the fence to the statues.
Mr. Cook agreed, expressing the view that enclosing those corners tightly would create a poor condition for the statues, and reiterating his recommendation to run the fence in a straight line, which would be simpler and more elegant. Mr. Luebke clarified that the suggestion was to eliminate the returns at the corners and take the fence line straight to the adjacent building walls, which would address the staff concern about having a fence enclosure directly in front of a corner statue.
Mr. McCrery agreed with this approach and asked whether there are currently pedestrian entrances to the park at those corners. Mr. Stohs confirmed that gates would be provided at all locations where sidewalks would intersect the fence line, and he clarified that the potential revised approach would involve a continuous straight fence line with gates at each sidewalk crossing, rather than the inset design previously proposed. He noted that gates at the angled corner crossings could be accommodated, though the geometry of 45-degree gate conditions would require further study.
Mr. McCrery then offered several additional comments. He recommended that the gates be configured in odd numbers at any given entry, so the central opening would remain unobstructed by a post, preserving the key view axes into and through the park. He commented that the rendering showing the inset entry at the north, with five gate panels, achieves this effectively and is far more welcoming than the current temporary fencing, and he recommended that this inset entry concept be carried forward. He also agreed that the 4” picket spacing is the appropriate choice, noting that this is also consistent with building code requirements. He said that the proposed integration of the existing bollards within the fence is an interesting idea that requires further development, and that the Commission would need to see what the combined element would actually look like.
Mr. McCrery suggested that the recently installed White House fence serve as a direct precedent for the Lafayette Square fence, questioning the need for a more elaborate design treatment; Mr. Stohs confirmed that the White House fence meets the functional requirements. Mr. McCrery then addressed the public comments opposing the project, clarifying his view that the proposal is not to close the park but to enclose it, and he said that the park would remain open, as the renderings clearly show, and as the presenters’ attitudes throughout the presentation confirmed. He characterized the project as an effort to make the park both the President’s Park and the people’s park: open under normal conditions but closeable when safety requires it. He also emphasized the importance of the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble, noting that this right tends to be overshadowed by the freedom of speech, even though the two are equally fundamental. He observed that the consequences of ignoring that distinction are among the reasons that infrastructure such as this becomes necessary.
The discussion concluded without a formal action.
C. Government of the District of Columbia
CFA 16/JUL/26-3, Robert F. Kennedy Stadium site. 2400 East Capitol Street, SE. New stadium project. Concept. (Previous: CFA 19/MAR/26-2) Secretary Luebke introduced the second concept design submission for a new stadium to be built on the site of the former Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) Memorial Stadium, the demolition of which was completed earlier this year, with construction of the new stadium scheduled for completion in 2030. He said that at its March 2026 meeting, the Commission did not approve the concept and provided comments for development of the design. These comments included two recommendations: to strengthen the architectural expression of the stadium’s east and west entrances by completing the perimeter arcade or by incorporating a projecting portico element; and to consider relocating the parking garage proposed for the southeast side of the stadium to a site facing the Festival Plaza, opposite the D.C. Armory.
Mr. Luebke summarized the design team’s responses to these comments. The west facade now includes a 30’-deep projecting balcony at an upper level, an 8’-deep canopy above the entrance to bring a more human scale to the large opening, more expressive vertical elements, and a recessed roof area above the large opening, which was revised to be trapezoidal rather than curved. The east facade has been similarly revised. While the parking garages are proposed to remain in their previously shown locations, a more complete vision for the development of the parcel surrounding the garages and across from the Armory is provided. He asked Brian Hanlon, the RFK project executive for the District of Columbia Government, to present the project.
Mr. Hanlon described the RFK campus as a convergence of many elements that animate Washington, D.C.—simultaneously civic and natural, historic and forward-looking—and as a gateway to the city, a 365-day community asset, and a place where the District’s identity could be celebrated. He characterized the project as more than a stadium, calling it a catalyst for growth and civic pride. He said the District has participated in hearings before the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and has received concept and preliminary review approval. The District has also engaged deeply with the community through several dozen stakeholder meetings conducted over the preceding eighteen months, listening to a range of stakeholders whose feedback had directly shaped site planning, circulation design, and the open space strategy. He said the engagement process has reaffirmed the District’s commitment to ensuring that the benefits of the redevelopment project are broadly shared.
Mr. Hanlon said that since the March 2026 Commission meeting, the D.C. Office of Planning had released a master plan for the campus in July 2026, with the public comment period open through August 14th. He said that coordination is continuing with the Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority (WMATA) regarding improvements to the Stadium–Armory Metrorail Station and bus rapid transit service, and that the D.C. Council had recently funded these efforts to enable WMATA to deliver the necessary improvements by opening day in 2030. He said the architects for the parking garages had been selected, allowing those elements to advance for both CFA and NCPC consideration. Stadium development is on schedule, with critical utility infrastructure work having commenced this summer. Full design development is anticipated to be completed in October 2026, followed by submission of below-grade permits; below-grade construction is expected to begin in early 2027, along with submission of above-grade permits. Mr. Hanlon said the District looks forward to CFA’s final review in spring 2027, receipt of above-grade construction permits in early 2028, and construction completion in early 2030. He then introduced Ben Spiritos, director of development for the Washington Commanders, and architect Lance Evans, director of sports and principal at HKS, to present the revised design.
Mr. Evans said the presentation would address two areas: the strengthening of the west and east entries and the concerns regarding the parking structures. He noted that subtle refinements had been made elsewhere on the stadium in response to the entry revisions. He said the previous west entry design had featured a concave arch opening and a clean, minimalist curtainwall expression emphasizing transparency into the stadium. The revised design breaks down the scale of the entry by introducing a more human-scale frame, while stronger horizontal elements have been added to the curtainwall to emphasize the entrance within the monumental axis. He said the curtainwall now incorporates vertically articulated mullions at 24’ on center—the same spacing as the perimeter colonnade—tying the two elements together. Articulated mullions integrated into the curtainwall system would engage the projecting balcony element. He noted that the projecting balcony offers views back toward the Capitol and is designed to engage with the sky while providing shelter. The curve of the roof fascia across the opening is intended to resemble the ornate friezes found elsewhere in the city, and the combined effect of the curtainwall, balcony, and colonnade framing would create a powerful entry sequence capable of handling the tens of thousands of people moving through on game days.
Mr. Evans said the east entry uses the same design language as the west. The curving fascia was redesigned so that the roof language is consistent, and the curtainwall articulation was continued on the east side with the same 24’-on-center rhythm and the addition of a lower canopy at the entrance. He said the east entry is intended to frame the monumental axis and establish a sense of open space defined and bounded on its edges, and he noted that the transparency of the curtainwall maintains connectivity between the interior of the stadium and the exterior landscaped terraces and monumental steps. He said the result is a single articulated architectural language across the stadium rather than two separate elements. He also presented an alternate study in which the intermediate verticals in the curtainwall are doubled in size, creating elements that read as columns within the curtainwall itself. He said the larger mullions create a stronger presence and help unify the perimeter colonnade and the curtainwall.
Mr. Evans then presented a fly-through animation of the stadium, commenting that the articulated mullions read powerfully in three dimensions, and that the rhythm and elegance of the colonnade, the form of the roof, and the relationship of the curtainwall to the monumental axis and the Capitol are clearly expressed. He noted that the shifting of light and shadow on the building throughout the day is intended to be a compelling quality of the design.
Mr. Spiritos then addressed parking and transportation. He said that at its previous review, the Commission had raised questions about the location of the parking garages and the framing of the western viewshed at the point where East Capitol Street meets the stadium’s west entry. He said that with the recent release of the District’s master plan for the area, the project team recognizes the importance of creating balance on both sides of the proposed Festival Plaza to frame the viewshed and entry sequence as one approaches from the west. This balance would be achieved through a new mixed-use development on the north side of East Capitol Street. He said that designs have not yet been developed for this area, but that the presentation shows conceptually what the new development could look like in terms of density, mix of uses, and the framing of the Festival Plaza.
Mr. Spiritos said the key principles of the site’s transportation network include minimizing vehicular-pedestrian conflicts, locating garages to the north and south to disperse traffic and ensure efficient ingress and egress on both event and non-event days, facilitating a safe multimodal neighborhood experience, and minimizing traffic on local streets. He noted that the road on the west side of the stadium is anticipated to be closed on event days, eliminating crossover conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians from the main thoroughfares to the north and south, with direct connections to both garages. He described the event-day circulation diagrams, showing ingress from the main thoroughfares directly to the garages, and egress after events allowing pedestrians to move freely to the Metro or to the garages without conflict with vehicles.
Mr. McCrery said that the Commission had not yet seen the master plan and that it is time for that review to occur, noting that the public comment period closes August 14th and that the Commission would not meet again before that deadline. He said that because the master plan had not yet been reviewed, it would be difficult to address anything beyond the stadium design itself, noting that the parking question appears to be embedded in the master plan as currently drafted. He said he therefore recommends setting aside, without comment, the question of both parking garages pending that broader review, and he suggested that the Commission’s discussion be limited to the stadium design in the interest of moving toward concept approval.
Mr. McCrery asked whether the city has any plans for the disposition of the D.C. Armory, given announcements that it was to be taken out of use, and he asked what opportunities the building might present for sports complexes. He noted this would be of broad interest and could continue to be an amenity to Washington, D.C.
Regarding the proposed stadium design, Mr. McCrery said the renderings are beautiful, and he thanked the team for the fly-through animations. He raised the issue of banners, flags, and large promotional imagery that stadiums inevitably accumulate, noting that such elements become part of the architecture whether planned for or not, citing as an example the banners between the columns of the National Archives Building. He encouraged the design team to begin thinking about where and how such signage would be incorporated, suggesting that American flags, D.C. flags, and the Commanders flag would be entirely appropriate, and he requested to see renderings reflecting this reality in a future review.
Mr. McCrery then addressed the entrance design, noting that the site had been part of the L’Enfant Plan from the beginning, that it sits on what he considers as the most significant urban design axis in the world. He said the new stadium would occupy a position among neighbors that include the United States Capitol, the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, the White House, and the National Archives. He said each of these neighbors is a powerful work of architecture, particularly at their entrances, and he reiterated his view from the March meeting that the new stadium is still weakest where it needs to be strongest—at its east and west entries.
Mr. McCrery said the balcony structure on the west side reads as a stronger element than the opening of the entry itself, which he characterized not as a portal but as an “absence of architecture.” He acknowledged the attempt to emphasize the axis by clearing it of obstructions, but he said he does not find this approach successful. He suggested an alternative approach of actively marking and owning the axis—not by placing an object on centerline, but by making the entry itself a true portal, clearly defined and powerfully expressed. He offered the analogy of a crusader castle, where the nature of the entrance is unmistakable by virtue of the elements flanking it, and said the same principle applies here. He called for more-than-gentle design refinements, saying the project team needs to consider how to mark the entry with the strength demanded by its urban context. He encouraged the designers to look at exemplary historic American stadiums for precedents, such as at Ohio State in Columbus and Soldier Field in Chicago. He concluded that the proposed building is almost great, but that the entries require substantially more work. Mr. Evans acknowledged the direction, confirming that the Commission is asking for stronger framing of the entry and further articulation of the balconies. Mr. McCrery confirmed this and acknowledged that the revised design is an improvement from March.
Mr. Kimball said he wishes to associate himself Mr. McCrery’s comments.
Mr. McCrery moved as a procedural matter that the Commission’s consideration that day be limited to the stadium itself, setting aside any discussion of surrounding buildings, grounds, and master plan; with second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission voted to limit its review to the stadium design.
Mr. McCrery elaborated on his recommendation to look at precedents, noting that several great American stadiums—particularly older collegiate stadiums—have addressed the challenge of creating powerful buildings in strong urban settings. He said this is increasingly rare in modern stadiums, most of which are situated in parking lots. He contrasted Camden Yards in Baltimore, which he described as deeply integrated into the urban fabric and immediately identifiable as being of that place, with the adjacent Ravens NFL stadium, which he said could be located anywhere. He said the new Washington Commanders stadium has that same quality of generic placelessness, but that the site—the terminus of East Capitol Street, west of the Anacostia River, on the most significant urban design axis in the world—demands that the architecture embrace and respond to that specificity. He reiterated that he finds much of the design very good, and that he particularly likes the balconies and the openness above the entry, but he said that the team has not yet done enough at the portals.
Chairman Cook asked if it would be acceptable to the Commission to approve the concept with the expectation of further review of the portals. Mr. McCrery offered a motion to approve the concept design for the new stadium with respect to its siting, position, massing, size, and location, and with the expectation of further design development focused on strengthening the architectural expression of the east and west portals; upon second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission adopted this action.
D. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 16/JUL/26-5, Shirley Chisholm Elementary School, 1001 G Street, SE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Final. (Previous: CFA 19/FEB/26-7). Secretary Luebke introduced the final design for renovations and additions to Shirley Chisholm Elementary School, located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. He said that at the February 2026 meeting, the Commission approved the concept submission and provided several recommendations for the development of the design, including: to extend the facade treatment of the new classroom volume to the south by one bay; to add a band to the new facades to echo the historic belt course; and to add a fourth window on the south facade. He said the Commission also expressed a preference for the off-white color option for the large metal canopy spanning the rear addition. He said the final design submitted incorporates most of these recommendations, with the exception that the facade treatment has not been extended by one bay at the full height, which the presenters would explain further. He said the final landscape design is consistent with the approved concept and includes a new entrance plaza with a ramp, playgrounds, a pollinator garden, an area for outdoor physical education classes, trees, and parking lots. He asked Maggie Grady, project manager for the D.C. Department of General Services, to introduce the project.
Ms. Grady said the proposal is for a full modernization of the existing elementary school, including demolition of the wing built in 1969 and much of the original school’s interior, while retaining the facade and entrance. She said the completed school, approximately 105,000 square feet, will serve 606 students. Construction is scheduled to begin soon, with the project to be completed in the summer of 2028. She asked Hiroshi Jacobs, associate principal at Studios Architecture, to present the final design.
Mr. Jacobs said that in response to the Commission’s recommendation to extend the new classroom volume by one bay, the design team studied adding a fourth bay but determined that extending it to the third floor was not appropriate because the gymnasium and associated stage form a two-story volume, above which sits a mechanical enclosure for the addition. He said the proposed design creates the impression of a bay at the stage volume but does not continue it to the third floor, where the mechanical enclosure is located. He said that CFA staff had asked the team to study extending the expression to the third floor, which he said has architectural merit in terms of producing four bays of equal height, but the difference between the programs for each volume means that the facade of that extended bay would not match the others in terms of glazing percentage. The team therefore concluded it would be appropriate to stop the bay expression at the second floor. He also noted that extending it to the third floor would be significantly more expensive, and that the client’s budget constraints support stopping the bay expression at the second floor.
Mr. Jacobs said the design team sought to strengthen the reference to the historic belt course by creating a slightly projecting double soldier course of brick between the second and third floors. For the central volume containing the dining space, the approved concept showed three bays of glazing along the south side. He said the team has been able to add a fourth window as suggested, addressing the change in the program of the dining area as well. He said the team is also proceeding with the lighter-colored metal option for the canopy. He concluded by presenting additional renderings of the proposed final design, including a view from 10th and G Streets showing the historic building in the foreground with the addition to the left; the southern dining pavilion viewed from 11th Street to the southeast with the four-bay expression continuing to the second floor; and a view looking southwest from 11th and G Streets.
Chairman Cook welcomed questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. McCrery asked to see an image of the massing option that extends the bay to the third floor, confirming that the program in that location is mechanical. He observed that this element would be a fence or screen, and asked what the material would be adjacent to the brick facade; Mr. Jacobs said it would be louvers for the mechanical screening. Mr. McCrery observed that the project would commit resources for screening regardless, and he suggested that it would be within the client’s means to create window-like openings on the third floor in that bay, with those openings containing louvers for the mechanical equipment. He commented that extending the fourth bay to the third floor would be better urban design, resulting in two clear building masses rather than three, and that the architecture would be cleaner and clearer as a result. He acknowledged the potential increased cost but said that the cost of a design decision is not a jurisdictional question for the Commission. He said he is otherwise very pleased with the work and would be prepared to recommend final approval, but with that condition.
Ms. Harris asked whether the team would consider adding a second set of windows so that the fourth bay’s massing would match the other three. Mr. Jacobs responded that the goal was indeed for all four bays to be the same, and agreed that it made sense to do so, though he noted that because the program behind the facade is a stage, the windows in that location would need to be blind.
Chairman Cook thanked the presenters and asked if there was a motion. Mr. McCrery offered a motion to approve the final design, with the condition that the fourth bay expression is extended to the third floor consistent with the discussion. Secretary Luebke suggested the Commission should first ask the team whether it is willing to proceed in that direction, noting he did not want to create a stalemate. Mr. McCrery asked the team if they would be willing to do so; Mr. Jacobs responded that the team would need to consult with the client before committing to that direction, but he expressed his willingness to have that conversation. Secretary Luebke suggested the approval could be conditional, leaving the matter to be resolved with the client. Chairman Cook confirmed that if the client agreed, the approval would stand; Mr. McCrery affirmed that was his motion. Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission approved the final design with the condition that the fourth bay expression be extended to the third floor, subject to client concurrence, with staff to ensure the condition is met.
Mr. McCrery extended his sincere compliments to the design team on the quality of the work. Chairman Cook echoed those remarks, calling the work beautiful.
F. D.C. Department of Buildings—Shipstead-Luce Act
2. SL 26-126, 1445 New York Avenue, NW. Renovations and additions to building. Concept. (Previous: SL 26-107, June 2026) Secretary Luebke introduced the second concept submission for renovations and additions to an existing office building at the intersection of New York Avenue and 15th Street, NW, near the White House and facing diagonally toward the Treasury Department and the Milken Center for Advancing the American Dream. He said that at the review of the initial concept at its June 2026 meeting, the Commission members had expressed appreciation for the effort to improve the office complex but also raised several concerns. They questioned the design approach of retaining the brick masonry facade only at the street level, with the upper levels differentiated in a more transparent cladding system; they said this approach recalls the practice of retaining the facade of a historic building for use as a shallow screen in front of a larger modern block. They had suggested moving the primary doors at the New York Avenue entrance to the center of the existing three-bay composition to respond to the established building hierarchy. He said that in response to these comments, the design team had provided additional studies of the material palette, facade articulation, recladding, and illustrative renderings depicting various options for the curtainwall and lobby articulation. He asked Abram Goodrich, design director at Gensler, to present the revised design.
Mr. Goodrich said the Queen Anne-style building was originally built for the National Savings and Trust Bank, with the original block at the corner dating to 1888 and featuring an ornate cornice with a copper tourelle and gilded dome. Continuing down New York Avenue to the east, the building incorporates several additions dating from 1915, 1925, and finally 1984, the last of which introduced a Postmodern-style facade that serves as a transition from the historic brick sections to a taller, nine-story mass set back from the primary building facade. The taller volume is clad in brick that generally matches the existing building but features a more horizontal fenestration pattern not fully consistent with the spirit of the historic building. He said the current building entrance is located adjacent to the nine-story mass, which houses the principal elevators, resulting in an unfortunate arrangement where a loading dock and fire stair exit discharge immediately adjacent to the main entrance.
Mr. Goodrich said the project scope focuses on the 1984 addition and does not include major changes to the historic building. The major project elements include converting the upper roof into an occupiable penthouse and terrace, replacing the facade on the taller 1984 mass, developing the lower rooftop as habitable space, and carving out new space within what was originally the historic bank’s light court to reintroduce an atrium that brings additional daylight into the building. Other work involves removing security bars from the street-level windows of the historic building, which he said was supported by the D.C. Historic Preservation Office, and reconfiguring the main entrance by reclaiming space from the existing arcade.
Mr. Goodrich then addressed the Commission’s specific comments from the June review. He acknowledged the concern that recladding the taller mass in glass could evoke the perception of a facade-only preservation project, and he noted that this perception could be exacerbated by retaining the arcade base at the loading entrance and egress stair discharge locations. In response to the suggestion of continuing brick through the gap between the 1984 addition and the adjacent residential building to the east, the design team prepared several studies. He also noted the Commission’s suggestions to consider extending the new glass facade all the way to the ground, to relocate the entrance to the center of the three-bay composition, to reconsider the treatment at the top of the penthouse, and to further explore the use of a patinated-copper-like green color for the metal accents.
Mr. Goodrich said the first study retains the 1984 brick base and infills the gap with new or potentially reclaimed brick to match the historicist facade, rising to the roofline, with paired windows picking up on the proportions of the historic building. He noted that extending the existing cornice line across this gap is not feasible, as it would intersect the adjacent floor level, disrupting the sixth-floor windows. A variation on this study creates a horizontal emphasis lower down, at the transition between the fourth and fifth floors, which has the effect of visually distinguishing the historic volume and the later historicist facade from the taller mass above. An additional alternative study and variation substitute metal cladding for the brick while maintaining similar compositional arrangements.
Mr. Goodrich then presented studies on resolving the base of the gap at the ground level. One approach emphasizes a double-height expression by extending a frame from the ground story upward to include the mezzanine-level windows. An alternative extends the glass as far as possible toward the ground, with a darker bronze finish at the base to allow the utilitarian doors to recede. Additional compositional variations explore emphasizing or deemphasizing the second-floor belt course, and a maximum-glass option extends glazing all the way to the ground floor.
Mr. Goodrich then presented three options for the entrance relocation. The existing condition has the entrance at one end of the three-bay composition, providing 20’-high ceilings at the entry before the mezzanine floor drops the ceiling height. He said centering the entrance was identified as desirable from a compositional standpoint, but he said this presents significant interior planning obstacles, including the potential relocation of an existing structural column, a fire control room, and an electrical closet directly in the path of entry, as well as conflicting with the location of proposed new restrooms being added to serve the bank space. Another option would retain the existing entrance position but move it toward the sidewalk and enclose the arcade.
Mr. Goodrich noted that the June submission had included a design placeholder for an architectural frame intended to emphasize the large portal or recess at the penthouse. After further discussion with the client, the team has moved toward downplaying this feature and carrying the facade language around it in a quieter manner, consistent with the more conventional Washington approach of not drawing attention to the penthouse level. He presented drawings showing a range of visual weights for the cornice treatment at the top, from the thin expression shown in June to increasingly substantial expressions; he said the client’s preference was for the medium-weight option.
Mr. Goodrich then presented studies exploring the use of a patinated-copper-like green color for the aluminum metal accents, paired with green-tinted glass, as an alternative to the brown finish previously shown. He said that the green option had been explored internally by the design team, and while initially well received, had drawn concern from the client that it would read as too much green and feel overwhelming. He concluded with the client’s preferences: a fully glazed treatment for the gap from top to bottom rather than brick infill; a single-story emphasis at the ground to isolate the utilitarian doors while deemphasizing the second-floor belt course; a medium-weight cornice at the penthouse; and retaining the existing entrance position while pulling it forward, rather than recentering it.
Chairman Cook thanked Mr. Goodrich for the presentation, commenting that the green patina-like finish is interesting in how it enhances the other elements of the building, and he asked whether the client had definitively ruled it out; Mr. Goodrich confirmed that it was not ruled out, but that it is not preferred. Mr. Cook acknowledged that the Commission members might be divided on the topic but said he finds the green color interesting. Mr. McCrery said that he had preferred the all-brick option until the green color study was shown. He asked whether the design team had explored combining green metal with brown- or bronze-tinted glass, commenting that the combination might address the client’s concern about an overwhelming green effect while retaining the interest of the green finish. Mr. Goodrich confirmed the team had not seriously studied that combination. Mr. McCrery acknowledged the client’s concern, but said he finds the green option compelling. Mr. Goodrich asked if there were any hesitations about the use of finished aluminum imitating patinated copper, noting that up close there is a visible difference from natural copper, though less so from farther away. Mr. McCrery said he has no hesitation, commenting that copper refining has improved to the point of eliminating impurities, which actually makes the patina of natural copper less attractive than it once was. He said the green aluminum would be a handsome solution and would relate the new work to details from the historic building’s copper features in a surprisingly effective way. Mr. Goodrich noted that when studying the green color, the team had also considered the historic Hibbs building to the north, which has a mansard roof with patinated copper.
Mr. McCrery said he prefers the all-glass-and-metal scheme with the green color over the version where the upper treatment of the taller mass goes down to the base, which he said makes the building appear to be kneeling or stumbling rather than standing proudly on the streetscape. Regarding the options for the cornice treatments at the penthouse, he said supports the client’s preferred medium-weight option, but he finds the stronger, heavier cornice expression more compelling when considered from a greater distance, noting that the stronger cornice also has a similarity with significant Modernist precedents.
Mr. McCrery commented that the vertical fins at the penthouse are not continuous across the facade, and he suggested that a stronger connection with the architecture could be established if the fins were continued across. He reiterated his enthusiasm for the green metal, commenting that color is relatively rare in the city and that dark-black brick had become a recent trend that he considers more characteristic of Manchester, England, than of Washington, D.C.
Chairman Cook summarized that the Commission had started from a similar position—favoring the all-brick scheme—before the green metal studies were introduced, and he acknowledged that the Commission was divided. He noted that the applicant did not favor the green option but had brought it forward because it was not a firm no. He asked how to proceed given the range of opinions expressed.
Secretary Luebke sought to clarify the Commission’s position, asking Mr. McCrery to confirm his preference among the schemes as applied to the whole building: whether, in the brown metal version, he prefers the all-glass-and-metal option going to the base, or the brick infill scheme. Mr. McCrery asked to see the all-brick scheme for comparison. Secretary Luebke identified the image and asked whether, if the brown metal were used, Mr. McCrery would prefer the metal to continue down to the base or stop at the brick; Mr. McCrery expressed a preference for the all-glass-and-metal scheme as drawn. Mr. Goodrich said he could represent the client’s position: given a choice between the brick infill scheme and the green or brown metal going all the way down to the base with more glass, the client would likely favor the all-glass option, since greater openness on the facade is part of the leasing strategy and attractive to prospective tenants.
Mr. McCrery suggested returning to the comparison of brown versus green metal. Mr. Taylor requested a view from the building from the Treasury, where the original patinated copper on the historic building could be seen in relation to the proposed green metal; Mr. Goodrich said the team did not have that view in the current presentation.
Mr. Cook raised the question of the entrance location, asking Mr. McCrery whether he still supports centering the main door. Mr. McCrery acknowledged the practical constraints imposed by the existing conditions, and he said he accepts the design team’s reasoning and favors enclosing the arcade. Regarding the preferred scheme, he asked whether certain vertical spandrel elements showed metal panels versus opaque glass; Mr. Goodrich confirmed the distinctions. Mr. McCrery commented that the preferred scheme is more powerful as a result of the metal spandrels and suggested that consistent use of metal spandrels in the other options would further strengthen the architectural expression.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to approve the concept design submission, with the direction that subsequent development of the design pursue the all-glass-and-metal option shown with multiple material combinations—brown metal with brown glass, green metal with brown glass, green metal with green glass, and additional permutations—and incorporate the refinements discussed regarding the penthouse level, specifically the continuation of the vertical fins through the cornice band, and render distant views for all the options. Upon second by Mr. Kimball, the Commission adopted this action.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:03 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas Luebke, FAIA
Secretary