The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:00 a.m.
Members participating:
Hon. Hazel Ruth Edwards, Vice Chair
Hon. Bruce Redman Becker
Hon. Peter Cook
Hon. Lisa Delplace
Hon. William J. Lenihan
Staff present:
Thomas Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Christopher Berger
Kay Fanning
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
Tony Simon
(In the absence of Chair Billie Tsien, Vice Chair Edwards presided at the meeting.)
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 18 June meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the June meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission voted to approve the minutes.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 18 September, 16 October, and 20 November 2025. He noted that there would be no meeting in August.
C. Proposed 2026 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 2026. The Commission meeting dates are scheduled to be the third Thursday of each month, with no meeting in August or December.
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 Mr. Lenihan with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission adopted the proposed schedule.
D. Report on the approval of objects proposed for acquisition by the Freer Gallery of Art. Secretary Luebke reported Vice Chair Edwards’s approval the previous week of the Smithsonian Institution’s proposed acceptance of two sets of textiles donated for the permanent collection of the Freer Gallery of Art. The first set includes three eighteenth-century silk textiles; two are from India and one is from Indonesia, and they are a gift from the collection of Mr. Widodo Latip. Also part of the first set is an Indian Ramayana textile made in the early nineteenth century. The second set, to be purchased from the dealer Thomas Murray Arts, includes an Indian ceremonial textile from the sixteenth or seventeenth century, as well as a nineteenth-century Japanese sample book of imported sarasa [calico] textile fragments from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. He noted that the approval for Freer acquisitions is specifically required to be made by the Chair, or the Vice Chair in her absence, and no vote by the Commission as a whole is needed.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of the appendices had been circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting.
Appendix I – Government Submissions Consent Calendar: Mr. Hart said the consent calendar includes ten items, and that there were no changes to the draft circulated to the Commission. Upon a motion by Ms. Delplace with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix includes 22 projects. Three cases have been removed from the draft appendix and are being held open for review in a future month (case numbers SL 25-116, SL 25-124, and SL 25-125); the recommendations on five cases were changed to be favorable following the receipt of revised materials (case numbers SL 25-106, SL 25-117, SL 25-121, SL 25-122, and SL 25-127). The recommendations for eight projects are subject to the receipt of supplemental materials and further coordination with the applicants; other changes to the draft appendix are limited to minor wording changes and the notation of dates for the receipt of supplemental materials. She requested authorization to finalize these recommendations when the outstanding issues are resolved. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission approved the revised Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix. Secretary Luebke noted the short turnaround time for reviewing these projects, typically resulting in a draft appendix that is continuing to evolve. (See agenda item II.E for an additional Shipstead-Luce Act submission.)
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Mr. Berger said the appendix includes 32 projects; one project was removed from the draft appendix for review in a future month (case number OG 25-240). Upon a motion by Ms. Delplace with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the revised Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider items II.D.1 and II.E. Secretary Luebke said the Commission had identified these submissions as ones that could be approved without a presentation.
D. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 17/JUL/25-3, Brent Elementary School, 301 North Carolina Avenue, SE, Washington, DC. Construction of a new building and landscape. Revised concept. (Previous: CFA 19/JUN/25-6)
Secretary Luebke said the Commission reviewed the project in June 2025 and the staff has worked with the project team to address the issues raised by the Commission. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the revised concept submission. Secretary Luebke expressed appreciation for the collaborative consultation process with the applicant team, which has resulted in a design that is responsive to both the Commission’s comments and the community’s input.
E. D.C. Department of Buildings
SL 25-062, 1842 and 1844 Primrose Road, NW. Two new single-family residences. Concept.
Secretary Luebke said the proposal is for two new houses, near the Maryland border, that would be sited on lots that were subdivided from a larger single lot. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the concept submission.
Secretary Luebke expressed appreciation for the efforts of the applicant team to mitigate the impact of these new properties on the adjacent Rock Creek Park.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.
B. National Park Service
CFA 17/JUL/25-1, National Mall and Memorial Parks, Washington, DC. Plan for telecommunication infrastructure. Information presentation.
Secretary Luebke introduced an information presentation regarding the plan to improve telecommunication infrastructure capacity within the monumental core of Washington. He said the plan is intended to establish a framework and guidance for future installation of this infrastructure on the National Mall and adjacent parkland areas, with the goal of providing a fivefold capacity increase for both 4th generation (4G) and 5th generation (5G) cellular telecommunications systems, as recommended by federal security stakeholders. The National Park Service (NPS) has identified five study areas for the plan: the National Mall; President’s Park South and the Washington Monument Grounds; West Potomac Park and the Lincoln Memorial; the Tidal Basin; and East Potomac Park.
Secretary Luebke said NPS has identified several issues concerning the siting of this infrastructure, particularly the visual impacts on nationally significant landscapes and buildings, the constraints of existing infrastructure, and the large number of existing trees, which interfere with low-power 5G antennas, also known as “small cells.” The plan identifies a total of 57 sites that would comprise the minimum build-out for all current wireless carriers; some sites would require new antenna support structures, while other sites have existing infrastructure such as light poles that could be used for mounting antennas. He asked Tammy Stidham, associate regional director for lands and planning at the NPS National Capital Region, to begin the presentation.
Ms. Stidham said the telecommunications infrastructure plan has both challenges and opportunities because of the landscape’s cultural significance, iconic views, and important historic resources. She said this planning effort—intended to balance service and coverage requirements with the related infrastructure’s impact on public resources—will serve as a framework for other NPS properties faced with accommodating new telecommunications infrastructure. The plan does not include a design for a stand-alone pole to accommodate small cell equipment; NPS would return to the Commission for concept and final approval of the complete plan, as well as for any new pole design. She asked planners Mike Soderman and Claire Sale of AECOM to present the proposal.
Mr. Soderman said the goal is to increase cell network capacity on the National Mall and its environs by five times while minimizing any impacts to the historic landscapes. He said live testing of the cell network provided a snapshot of the existing cellular service coverage, with analysis of the results revealing several issues: inadequate network coverage, increased demand for modern telecommunication services, non-conforming infrastructure, and operational and maintenance challenges. He noted there is some existing permanent “macro” wireless infrastructure on buildings adjacent to the study area, as well as the ability to deploy temporary “cell-on-wheels” equipment, known as COWs, that can help to augment wireless service when there is advance notice for an event. He emphasized that the current plan indicates possible pole locations and configurations but does not yet propose a new pole design. He presented a map from the D.C. Department of Transportation illustrating the location of current small cell installations in public space, and he noted the gap in coverage on federally controlled land such as the National Mall. He said the criteria used to determine the proposed sites include minimizing impacts on cultural resources, using non-contributing architectural features for mounting equipment, reducing maintenance requirements, and specifying only the minimum number of antenna locations necessary to meet the established capacity goal. He noted that sites for small cell antennas must also accommodate specific antenna sizes, mounting supports, and associated utility cabinets.
Ms. Sale said existing architectural elements in the study area may be appropriate mounting locations for antennas, including light poles, stanchions, wayfinding pylons, and restroom buildings. She said most of the existing light poles are historic resources, with the exception of several “cobra head” fixtures. Unfortunately, there is not a sufficient number of non-contributing fixtures in the area; however, there are some tall poles with fixtures that light the exteriors of several memorials that may be appropriate for mounting small cell antennas.
Ms. Sale then presented additional details of the five areas included in the plan. She said the National Mall area is bounded by 3rd and 14th Streets, NW/SW, Constitution Avenue, NW, and Independence Avenue, SW. Based on the established criteria, there are fourteen sites available for antennas. These locations flank the outside edge of the Mall walkways and would be evenly spaced. She said that siting the antennas on either Madison or Jefferson Drive would be problematic due to potential signal interference from the large tree canopy.
Ms. Sale said the Washington Monument Grounds and President’s Park South areas are open expanses of lawn with trees at the perimeter. The five locations identified at the Washington Monument are existing light stanchions and the security screening building at the base of the monument. Two locations in President’s Park are existing poles at either end of the Ellipse. She noted that the 150-foot-wide view corridor between the White House and the Jefferson Memorial would be kept free of any new antennas.
Ms. Sale said West Potomac Park and the Lincoln Memorial area could accommodate eleven sites: three in the area of Constitution Gardens and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; four in the area of Ash Road and the World War II Memorial; two on the existing lighting stanchions that illuminate the Lincoln Memorial; and two west of the Lincoln Memorial. She said there are twelve potential antenna locations around the Tidal Basin, adjacent to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial, and along Ohio Drive, SW. She said two sites are lighting stanchions at the Jefferson Memorial, five are along Ohio Drive, and the remaining five would be adjacent to either the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial or the Martin Lither King, Jr. Memorial. Ms. Sale said the thirteen locations in East Potomac Park are along Ohio Drive from the NPS National Capital Region headquarters to Hains Point. She summarized that there are 57 antenna locations throughout the five study areas. NPS anticipates further public review of the proposed plan in the fall of 2025, with designs for the stand alone poles to be developed later.
Vice Chair Edwards thanked the project team for its presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Delplace said it is helpful to see the methodology used to determine the specific locations, and she asked if the commercial telecommunications companies are included in the planning as they will ultimately be the ones designing the new poles. Ms. Stidham said NPS would be initiating a process in the future to consider the companies’ various coverage needs; NPS would evaluate the proposals to determine which company best meets the plan requirements, and then that company would design a new pole.
Ms. Delplace emphasized that the National Mall is a sensitive cultural landscape, and that it is vitally important for the Park Service to develop pole design standards prior to the operators submitting their qualifications, as each operator would likely design something different to meet their own internal requirements and specifications. She raised concerns about the potential impacts of any new underground infrastructure and asked if the existing infrastructure is sufficient. Ms. Stidham said there is existing fiber-optic cabling in some locations, but more installations would be required. She added that companies will need to be creative and work together in providing the necessary underground fiber-optic lines given of the sensitive landscape. Ms. Delplace said it would be important for the Commission to review any potential designs of new small cell poles, including any equipment to be placed on the existing memorial lighting stanchions. Ms. Stidham said the lighting stanchions were chosen as potential sites because they are not historic and tend to visually recede despite their size.
Mr. Becker said project team may wish to inquire about the emerging satellite-based 5G technology, as it may obviate the need for ground-based infrastructure. Ms. Stidham agreed that rapid technological change may reduce or eliminate the need for these locations on the Mall.Mr. Becker said the potential new poles represent an industrial design challenge, and he advised that the operators be creative in the design process. He also noted that the operators may deploy public Wi-Fi alongside the new 5G antennas.
Mr. Cook thanked the project team for its thoughtfulness in attempting to site new antennas within this sensitive landscape. He asked how the benchmark of a fivefold increase in service capacity was determined, and if a smaller increase in capacity would be acceptable. Mr. Soderman responded that the proposed benchmark takes into account all the existing antenna sites that surround the National Mall and they used this as a basis to determine what is needed to augment existing service. Mr. Cook asked if increasing antenna numbers in the locations just outside the study area had been considered. Ms. Stidham said NPS can plan only for areas under its control, and that the presented locations are what was determined necessary to meet the fivefold increase in service capacity.
Vice Chair Edwards said the Commission looks forward to reviewing additional details of the plan and designs for the new poles. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
C. U.S. General Services Administration
CFA 17/JUL/25-2, St. Elizabeths West Campus, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2701 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, SE, Washington, DC. Phase 1 - Construction of a new garage and associated landscape at Gate 6. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design proposal for a new above-ground parking garage at Gate 6 of the St. Elizabeths West Campus, which serves as the headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and several of its component agencies, including the Coast Guard, the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He said redevelopment of the campus for DHS began in the early 2000s and is guided by a master plan adopted in 2008 and amended in 2020. In 2024, the Commission reviewed and approved a 1,500-space, four-level underground garage and an associated aboveground screening building at Gate 1, in the northeast corner of the campus along Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue. It was subsequently determined that this facility would be too expensive to construct; therefore, the current proposal is for an above-ground garage at Gate 6, near I-295 and an associated campus road. The project would be in two phases: the first will provide 1,250 parking spaces; the second phase, along with a third facility somewhere else on the campus, would provide the remaining 1,225 spaces.
Secretary Luebke said the proposed garage site in the northwest corner of the campus— located at the base of the hill that leads up to the historic Center Building, the original Gothic Revival hospital building, and the surrounding arboretum and agricultural landscape—was historically planted as fields and orchards. The forms of these historic uses—ordered rows of plantings, with varying levels of density and texture—informed the architectural concept for the garage. The garage is designed as a five-level structure cut into the hill and situated to allow natural ventilation and to obscure views of the parked vehicles from above. The rust-colored metal fins that compose the facade are intended to be compatible with the red brick and terracotta of the historic campus buildings. He said that if funding becomes available, a second phase would replace what is currently proposed as a surface parking lot in front of the garage with an additional structure that would be consistent with the design of this first phase.
Secretary Luebke said the landscape design is intended to screen views of the garage and to manage the viewsheds identified in the master plan, the most significant of which is the view from the Point—the promontory in front of the Center Building at the edge of the hilltop campus above the garage. Many new trees would be planted to augment the existing tree buffer and to obscure views of the new building. Planting along the fence line adjacent to the Barry Farm development to the north would also screen views to the garage from that direction. A green roof and a connection from the garage roof to Sweetgum Lane for employee shuttles would also be proposed in a future phase. He asked Kristi Tunstall Williams, director of the office of planning and design quality at the National Capital Region of the General Services Administration (GSA), to begin the presentation.
Ms. Williams said the new garage is a critical piece of infrastructure for the St. Elizabeths campus, as the 650,000-square-foot building currently under construction requires the parking capacity the garage would provide. She said the project team has worked closely with the Commission’s staff and other interested parties to identify suitable sites for a garage that would have minimal impact on the historic context and the views into and out from the campus; the design team has used topography, landscape, and architectural screening to minimize the impact. She asked landscape architect Hallie Boyce of OLIN and architect Toby Hasselgren of ZGF to present the design.
Ms. Boyce said the St. Elizabeths Campus sits on the Anacostia Hill system, part of the topographic bowl surrounding the confluence of the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers. As a result, the campus has expansive views toward the monumental core of Washington and across the Potomac toward Virginia. She characterized the campus as a hill topped by a plateau, developed over many decades as an arboretum landscape. Ravines on the slope, developed as both meadows and woodlands, form green “fingers” reaching up towards the plateau. Development of the campus began in 1855, and by 1895 it was being managed as agricultural land, producing fruits and vegetables for a self-sufficient hospital; it also included extensive woodland areas. Hospital operations on the historic campus began to be phased out in the 1960s, and since then the successional landscape has been augmented with new plantings. She said the master plan envisions a landscape of meadow and woodland typologies.
Ms. Boyce said the proposed garage site is currently a combination of open and wooded areas characterized by invasive plant species and unstable trees; this project offers the opportunity to restore a healthy woodland canopy for the next 50 to 100 years. She said the topography is dramatic, with approximately 140 feet of elevation extending from St. Elizabeths Access Road up to the Point; most slopes are more than 25 percent. Near the site is an extensive area of fill deposited during construction of the new DHS buildings. The site has constraints on all four sides: to the north and west, the campus perimeter fence and setback area; to the south, an existing water line and an ephemeral stream and wetland that must be preserved; and to the east, the Point and the historic St. Elizabeths landscape. On the opposite side of the campus perimeter fence is the Barry Farm community. The garage would have entrances for employees and visitors; a shuttle loop that would take employees and visitors up to the plateau area and back down throughout the day; and access for trucks. A new security screening facility in the garage would serve the entire campus.
Ms. Boyce said the proposed landscape design is intended to preserve distant views from the Point and the Center Building to the monumental core and across the Potomac River. Site grading would allow the garage to sit within the hillside, 53 feet below the Point and 32 feet above the access road, making it possible for it to be screened from view. She presented a section drawing illustrating how plantings would screen the garage building on the north, west, and south, as well as the planted terraces against the slope’s southern retaining wall that would step down to the garage. Vegetation would be used to screen and shape views, including close and middle views from the garage, and views to the garage from Barry Farm, I-295, and the Point. Distant views would be maintained and framed with plantings.
Ms. Boyce said the planting palette would be rich and varied, including adaptive plantings and some native species that were formerly present on the historic campus. The palette was also inspired by the species characteristic of the Piedmont physiographic region, a mixed hardwood and mesic hardwood forest. Plants in meadow and woodland ecotones would be arrayed based on elevation and the presence of water; these plant communities would surround the site to the north and south. Tree species will include some listed in the cultural landscape report for St. Elizabeths, with others added for their spring flowering and to provide a variety of color and texture. A planting palette has also been developed for the shadier ravine woodland areas, and a matrix of grasses and perennials is proposed for the sunnier meadow areas. The large planters on the garage facade would contain plants with seasonal interest. She said the proximity to the Potomac River requires accommodating stormwater on the site; groundcover, meadow plants, shrubs, and trees would allow for infiltration, and three bioretention basins would capture water.
Mr. Hasselgren presented the design of the new garage. He said a series of vertical metal fins varying in depth and situated four feet on-center would help filter light, foster natural ventilation, and add depth, rhythm, and variety to the long west-facing facade. The design is inspired by the character of both historical landscape uses and the varying ecological zones; in particular, the orchard typology provided inspiration for the order, density, and variation in texture, scale, and layering of the fins. On three different areas of the facade, the fins would be replaced by large planters, which would let more daylight into the garage and help break down the composition. In addition, since they would mark the ends of the drive aisles, the planters would also function as a wayfinding device. The fins are proposed to be a rusty shade of red, intended to complement the palette of the campus buildings and make the building visually recede into the hillside.
Mr. Hasselgren concluded with rendered views of the building from several locations, including from Sweetgum Lane along the future shuttle loop, and toward I-295 and Barry Farm. Views from the Point toward the garage, located 50 feet below, would be fully screened by landscape, and there would be distant views to the rivers. From Sweetgum Lane, the garage would be largely screened from view, except for occasional glimpses. More of the garage would be visible looking north from the shuttle loop, although the landscape would help ground the building and obscure some medium views. Looking east from I-295, the parking garage would be visible within its landscape, with the existing buildings in the foreground. From Barry Farm looking south, new landscape plantings would help mitigate intrusions into views and viewsheds. Finally, from the Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge over the Anacostia River, it would be possible to see Gate 6 and the parking garage. He said the project team is considering ways to further obscure views of the garage’s lighting; there would be no light poles on top of the garage, and other light levels would be kept low to minimize any light pollution in the views from the Center Building and other areas on campus.
Vice Chair Edwards welcomed questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Lenihan said the proposal is very thoughtful, commenting that the garage is well-sited and would essentially be buried in the landscape. He noted the lack of landscape plantings in the surface parking lot in front of the garage, and he asked for more information about the planned future extension of the garage on this lot. Ms. Williams said the temporary surface parking lot would be paved with gravel; the goal is to build the garage extension in a second phase, along with a warehouse and additional parking spaces. She said another goal is to maximize parking at this location to avoid having to build multiple surface parking lots in the historic core of the campus; another small parking lot is required to handle what this garage cannot accommodate. She said there is no timeline for the second phase as it is dependent on congressional appropriations.
Mr. Lenihan said there appears to be redundant and excessive paving throughout, and he asked if the design team had considered combining access lanes to reduce the amount of pavement while still retaining the separated vehicular entrances. Ms. Williams said there is a pinch-point where cars would come in and trucks would go out; the lanes were split because the streambed and topographical change in this area would limit the volume of vehicles that can move through. She added that concerns about cars entering and making left turns to reach the garage and parking lot resulted in this configuration of separate entrances. Mr. Lenihan acknowledged the challenge and encouraged careful consideration when constructing the second phase of the garage to ensure it is well integrated into the proposed garage.
Mr. Becker agreed that the proposal is thoughtful, and he asked if electric vehicle chargers, storage batteries, and solar canopies were considered. Ms. Williams said there are some existing vehicle chargers nearby, and the project team is studying policy directives from the current administration regarding this topic. She said solar canopies are not proposed due to potential impacts on viewsheds and the proposed phase two green roof, which is necessary for stormwater management. Mr. Becker said the proposed concrete garage would have a large upfront carbon footprint, and he asked if a mass timber structure been considered. Mr. Hasselgren responded that a mass timber system for the parking garage was investigated but that it would be too expensive.
Mr. Cook thanked the project team for its presentation and expressed support for the overall planning for the project. He asked if the second phase for the garage would have parking on the roof, and whether these cars would be visible in outward views from the Point; he said this would also depend on whether the proposed trees would have year-round foliage. Ms. Boyce said that the phase two garage would have a green roof to help mitigate its visual and ecological impact. She said both deciduous and evergreen trees species are proposed, but they are studying the effectiveness of using only evergreens to screen views of the garage. She said the landscape would be layered, with meadow grasses and shrub plantings augmenting the trees to screen views of cars that would be on the roof of the garage before the green roof is completed in the second phase. Mr. Cook agreed that the wintertime views require further study, and he suggested that a combination of landscape and architectural interventions on the uphill side of the garage may further mitigate its appearance.
Mr. Cook raised concerns about the impacts of the new garage on Barry Farm, immediately adjacent to the north, given the amount of traffic and noise that would be generated by thousands of additional vehicles. He advised that future presentations should include the planned development at Barry Farm, including more specific information about the effect of the parking garage development on views from adjacent buildings in the development. Ms. Williams said the project team is aware of the possible impacts on Barry Farm and that the development’s master plan had been consulted. She said current information is not available, although it appears that most of the denser development would be closer to I-295 on the west side of the property, with mid-rise townhouses near the boundary with St. Elizabeths. Mr. Hasselgren said the team will continue to consider possible impacts on Barry Farm as the garage design is developed, and they plan to work more closely with the city to get further details on the planned development. Mr. Cook asked if the garage would be naturally or mechanically ventilated; Mr. Hasselgren confirmed that it would be naturally ventilated, and Mr. Cook expressed his approval.
Ms. Delplace expressed support for the strategy of using the landscape to knit the new building into the existing hillside landscape. She said the presentation places more emphasis on views outward from the St. Elizabeths campus than on views toward the campus and parking garage, and she asked for more information on how the garage would appear in relation to the woodland context. She also asked for more information on the buffer between the garage and Barry Farm, as the large garage seems to be quite close to the property line. Ms. Boyce said the buffer between the garage and the existing perimeter fence would be 30 feet wide; Ms. Delplace observed that the garage would therefore be quite close. Ms. Boyce said larger trees can likely be planted in this buffer area, and that they could be staggered for maximum screening. Ms. Delplace said the buffer area requires further study because it would be clearly visible from Barry Farm, across the highway, and from the Potomac River. She emphasized that further screening of the garage should be considered, particularly since the garage proposed in phase two would be even closer to the development and river.
Vice Chair Edwards suggested a consensus to approve the project. Secretary Luebke summarized that the Commission generally supported the concept proposal and provided commentary on secondary issues, particularly screening and access. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the concept design with the comments provided.
D. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 17/JUL/25-3, Brent Elementary School, 301 North Carolina Avenue, SE, Washington, DC. Construction of a new building and landscape. Revised concept. (Previous: CFA 19/JUN/25-6) The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
2. CFA 17/JUL/25-4, Congress Heights Recreation Center. 611 Alabama Avenue, SE, Washington, DC. Construction of a new building and landscape. Revised concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced a revised concept design submission for a new building and landscape at the Congress Heights Recreation Center in Southeast Washington. A previous design was reviewed by the Commission between 2020 and 2022; however, the swimming pool was removed from the program because of budgetary constraints, requiring a reworking of the design. He said the new recreation center building would be composed of two volumes, with the taller one containing the gymnasium. The site design is essentially the same as in the previous design and would include two different playgrounds—one for 2-to-5-year old children and the other for 5-to-12-year olds—along with a basketball court, multiuse field, and community gardens. He asked Jamie Johnson, a project manager with the D.C. Department of General Services, to begin the presentation.
Ms. Johnson said the project has been developed through the design-build method, with a focus on accessibility and integration into the neighborhood. She asked architects David Bagnoli and Sasha Petersen of Studio MB, and landscape architect Mila Antova of Moody Graham, to present the design.
Mr. Bagnoli said the new 17,500-square-foot building would be smaller and more compact than the previous design. The site is not easily seen from Alabama Avenue, as it sits in the center of its block and is surrounded by buildings that include the Rehoboth Baptist Church, Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School, single-family houses, and apartment buildings. The facility is accessed primarily by a driveway off of Alabama Avenue that leads to the parking lot shared with the school, with secondary pedestrian access from Savannah Street to the south. He said the existing site would be reconfigured to accommodate the new facility, and several heritage trees along a sloped wooded edge at southeast corner would be preserved. The driveway from Alabama Avenue would be maintained, and a new emergency access road would be built from Savannah Street, with a 20-foot-wide planted strip between this road and the school.
Mr. Bagnoli said the primary entrance lobby for the new building would project forward of the larger, taller gym block. The roof of the gym volume would accommodate the building’s mechanical equipment and green roof areas, as well as potential locations for rooftop solar panels. There are already geothermal wells on the site for the school, so additional wells would not be possible. Bioretention ponds would mitigate stormwater runoff. Community gardens would be located at the site’s northeast side, accessible from the school and the access road. The playgrounds would have a natural, curvilinear configuration. The outdoor basketball court would be located on the east side of the building. The intended entry sequence for the outdoor spaces would continue from the access road and toward a central path running between the recreation center building and the playgrounds, with the playing courts and multiuse field beyond.
Ms. Petersen said the design is intended to maintain a similar language for both building volumes while still distinguishing them. Design goals include improving the civic presence of the recreation center, creating a welcoming and transparent entrance that can be approached from three directions, and establishing an architectural dialogue with the neighboring civic buildings, whose architectural elements include vertical windows, columns, and pilasters. She said the new building seeks to balance transparency for security and views with the opacity needed for energy management and sustainability purposes. A generous corridor would run through the smaller volume to the playing fields beyond. A large kitchen would be on the south side of the corridor, facing the playgrounds, along with different activity and meeting rooms; the gym volume and other support spaces would be situated to the north.
Ms. Petersen said both volumes would have a light-colored brick base; the smaller volume would have a metal and glass storefront system with bronze-colored mullions and accents. The cladding of metal panels would have a color palette of muted blues to create minimal contrast with the site. Perforated panels would cover some of the building’s window openings to shade rooms that require less natural light. The gym volume would be clad with ribbed metal panels in a dark green color, with clerestory windows providing some natural light without interfering with game play. A perforated metal screen for the rooftop mechanical equipment would appear opaque from certain angles to allow the gym volume to read as a single volume while still providing a sense of lightness. To improve building signage, the screen would feature the center’s name in large letters.
Ms. Antova said the landscape design would provide a lush ecological setting for the building, with multilayered plantings to promote environmental and social resilience; organic shapes would be juxtaposed with the clean lines of the architecture. She said the main idea is to connect and blend the natural and urban landscape contexts through the use of curvilinear shapes, which would pull in the existing character of the land while creating well-defined spaces for immersive experiences. The design includes two playgrounds, a pavilion, a basketball court, and community gardens. The planting palette includes productive and native plants to increase biodiversity and support wildlife. The existing tree canopy would be expanded to mitigate the heat island effect and to provide respite, and on-site stormwater management would improve ecological and social resilience.
Vice Chair Edwards welcomed questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Delplace asked if there would be a perimeter fence or only fences around the play areas. Ms. Antova responded that the basketball court, community gardens, and each playground would be individually fenced. Ms. Delplace said the proposed landscape design includes a great deal of hardscape, and she recommended adding more green areas. She said the team should consider how to articulate the spaces where people are meant to gather and then reduce the areas of hardscape to only the walkways. Mr. Bagnoli noted that the blue areas on the plan indicate bioretention ponds, which would be planted. He said the twelve-foot-wide central path is required to accommodate emergency vehicles; this path is located directly above pipes running between the school and geothermal wells and therefore cannot be planted.
Mr. Becker asked if most visitors would arrive from Alabama Avenue to the north or from Savannah Street to the south. Mr. Bagnoli said that because the facility serves several surrounding neighborhoods, it is difficult to know what the primary approach to the building will be. He noted that there has never been a vehicular entrance from Savannah Street, which has poor pedestrian access and has been used for illegal dumping; however, people from the neighborhood to the south may use this entrance. Mr. Becker observed that the existing sign at this entrance may not be visible to those arriving from the south, and he recommended studying the visibility of all signage on approaches to the new building. Ms. Petersen said there is a prominent sign on the route from Savannah Street; however, finding the entrance from the north is more difficult because the sign there is concealed behind existing buildings and does not adequately address the road.
Mr. Becker recommended studying the embodied carbon in the proposed design and considering on-site energy production, commenting that it is unclear how extensively sustainability strategies have been investigated. Mr. Bagnoli said LEED Silver certification is being pursued, and the building is intended to meet the net-zero energy standards required by the District of Columbia. Proposed sustainability measures include accommodations for rooftop solar panels, green roofs, an emphasis on biodiversity in the planting palette, and the use of bioretention ponds to accommodate stormwater; unfortunately, it would not be possible to add the new facility to the existing geothermal system.
Mr. Becker said these measures do not address embodied carbon or other sustainability metrics, and he encouraged the project team to continue to study this issue. Mr. Bagnoli responded that this preference would be to design a mass timber building, but this is not possible given the budget constraints; instead, recycled steel and local materials are being considered. Mr. Becker said that the judicious selection of materials can often overcome budgetary constraints, and he advised continued investigation and development of sustainable design strategies for the project.
Vice Chair Edwards concluded the discussion and suggested a consensus to approve the project. Secretary Luebke summarized that the Commission members are expressing support for the overall site and building concepts, and that they have provided secondary comments about the site and sustainable design strategies. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the revised concept design with the comments provided.
3. CFA 17/JUL/25-5, Metropolitan Police Department 7th District Headquarters, 2455 Alabama Avenue, SE, Washington, DC. New police station. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced a final design submission for a new building and associated landscape for the Metropolitan Police Department 7th District Headquarters. He said the Commission had approved a concept design in May 2025 with several recommendations, including to further differentiate the base from the upper floors so they visually float above, and to consider lowering the actual building height. For the landscape, the Commission suggested varying the articulation of the site wall and increasing plantings to create a better pedestrian experience, as well as modifying the formal arc of trees in the parking lot to be more consistent with the intended informal planting character. Finally, he noted that the Commission had suggested further exploration of sustainability strategies for the building and landscape. He then asked Salo Levinas, principal at Shinberg Levinas Architects, and landscape architect Evan Timms of Bradley Site Design to present the design.
Mr. Levinas said that in response to the previous review, the project team reanalyzed the built context. Some adjacent buildings are three or four stories, including several apartment buildings, churches, and Garfield Elementary School. He said the new building is limited by zoning to a height of 40 feet, but it would be only 34 feet tall, consistent with the context. To more clearly differentiate the base from the two upper floors, alterations to the upper levels of the facade would create a consistent datum around the building; the reveal between the two sections would now be four inches instead of the two inches as previously proposed.
Mr. Timms said the revised landscape design includes the addition of four canopy trees along the perimeter wall adjacent to Alabama Avenue, SE, and new ornamental trees along James McGee, Jr. Street and Knox Street would complement the existing street trees and provide some visual interest for pedestrians. There would also be additional canopy trees and islands in the parking lot to provide shade and reduce impervious surfaces. The tree plantings within the parking area were reconfigured to be more naturalistic, eliminating the more formal arc of trees.
Vice Chair Edwards thanked the project team for its presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook said he is supportive of the building design, but is still not convinced that the upper floors of the building would appear to float above the base, as the similarities between the two brick textures are too subtle to create this effect; he suggested that the term “float” may be the issue, and that perhaps a different word would better convey the architect’s intentions. Mr. Levinas said the word “float” may indeed be incorrect; the intention is to subtly elevate the top part of the building, and it is therefore not more strongly differentiated. He said the small belt course would create a shadow line to help define the lower and upper parts of the building. Mr. Cook accepted this explanation.
Mr. Becker reiterated the Commission’s previous advice to bring more visual relief to the perimeter wall, possibly by incorporating some of the facade details into it. Mr. Levinas said he would try to bring some aspects of the facade into the perimeter wall design.
Vice Chair Edwards suggested a consensus to approve the project. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the final design with the comments provided.
E. D.C. Department of Buildings—Shipstead-Luce Act
SL 25-062, 1842 and 1844 Primrose Road, NW. Two new single-family residences. Concept.
The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
F. U.S. Mint
1. CFA 17/JUL/25-6, Congressional Gold Medal honoring Everett Alvarez, Jr. Designs for a gold medal. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced a set of candidate designs for a Congressional Gold Medal honoring Everett Alvarez, Jr., a U.S. Naval aviator during the Vietnam War. Mr. Alvarez was a prisoner of war (POW) from 1964 to 1973, one of the longest periods of captivity in U.S. military history. Following his release, he continued his service in the Navy, earned a law degree, served in the federal government, and wrote books about his experiences. The medal will be presented to Mr. Alvarez, who is now 87 years old, in recognition of his service to the nation and in remembrance of the other prisoners of war and their families. Mr. Luebke said the Mint will present three similar alternatives featuring a portrait of Mr. Alvarez for the obverse, and three alternatives for the reverse depicting him among a generalized group of prisoners being assembled for release. He asked Megan Sullivan, acting chief the Office of Design Management at the U.S. Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Sullivan said the Mint worked directly with Mr. Alvarez in the development of the proposed designs, which she said was a great honor, as her office does not often get to work directly with medal recipients. She noted his preferred obverse design is #2B, for its inclusion of land and sea elements and the USS Constellation, the ship on which he served. She said obverse #2A and #2B are similar, depicting Alvarez in his flight suit, with U.S. Navy aviator wings in the foreground. The background is composed of open fields and water, with the Constellation on the distant horizon.
Ms. Sullivan then presented the proposed reverse designs. She said reverse #1 and reverse #5A are equally preferred, with reverse #3 as a secondary preference. Each incorporates some or all of the “4th Allied POW Wing” crest; this is not an official military emblem, but rather was created by a former POW and has come to represent POWs from the Vietnam era. This crest includes the inscription, “Return With Honor,” and the number “4” indicates the fourth conflict in which Americans were held as POWs overseas. Reverse #1 includes the depiction of a dog tag inscribed with “3113 Days,” the number of days Alvarez was held as a POW. A guard tower in the background is symbolic of the captivity the POWs were leaving behind as they started their lives anew. Reverse #3 depicts Alvarez and other POWs, with the additional inscriptions “Commitment” and “Courage.” She said reverse #5A depicts Alvarez and POWs in the background along with a guard tower, and the inscription “Courage, Resiliency, Faith, Duty, and Commitment.”
Vice Chair Edwards welcomed questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook said the goal medal is well deserved by Mr. Alvarez, and it would be difficult to contradict the preferences of the honoree. He expressed strong support for obverse #2B, describing it as powerful, and said he does not have a preference among the proposed reverse designs.
Ms. Delplace agreed with these comments, and she also expressed support for obverse #2B. She said the composition of reverse #1 is busy and may detract from the power of the preferred obverse, but that she does not feel strongly enough to object to any of the presented alternatives; Mr. Cook agreed, and said that if reverse #5A is selected, he would suggest reducing the size of the numeral 4 to bring more focus on the people. Mr. Lenihan agreed with the previous comments, and said he likes the inclusion of the smaller plane in the backgrounds of obverses #2A and #2B which, along with the ship, creates an appropriate depth of field.
Vice Chair Edwards said she agrees with the other Commission members, and she summarized the consensus to support Mr. Alvarez’s preferences. Ms. Sullivan clarified that reverses #1 and #5A are equally preferred by Mr. Alvarez. Mr. Cook offered a motion to recommend obverse #2B and reverse #5A with the comments provided; upon a second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission adopted this action.
2. CFA 17/JUL/25-7, Commemorative Coin Program for the 2026 Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup. Designs for obverse and reverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced the submission of candidate designs for a set of three coins celebrating the World Cup soccer tournament that will be held in the United States, Canada, and Mexico in 2026. Tournament matches will take place in sixteen cities, eleven of which are in the U.S. He said the designs are required to include standard inscriptions for coinage, including a denomination; however, these will be non-circulating commemorative coins that the Mint will sell to the public. The differing metals and denominations include a $5 dollar gold coin, a $1 dollar silver coin, and a half-dollar clad coin. He said the presentation is divided into eight sets that feature obverse and reverse designs for each coin type, which together comprise the vision of an individual artist for the set. He said there would be a common reverse for the three coins, along with common features throughout the coin sets, including images of the World Cup trophy, the numbers “26” or “2026,” and stylized emblems or symbols of the host countries, such as a bald eagle for the U.S. and a maple leaf for Canada. He asked Megan Sullivan, acting chief of the Office of Design Management at the U.S. Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Sullivan said individual artists were asked to design a set of coins with separate obverses for the gold, silver, and clad coins, along with a common reverse. She said the Commission can recommend a combination of the obverses for the coins, but all three coins must have the same reverse. She said the Mint worked with the FIFA World Cup 2026 organization, and a preference was expressed for set #1. The FIFA liaison also expressed a secondary preference for obverse #3B, but only for the clad coin. The liaison also expressed a preference for reverse #4A. She noted that the World Cup trophy is not accurately depicted in several designs, and that it will need to be modified if it appears in any of the selected alternatives.
Ms. Sullivan began with set #1, which she reiterated is the liaison’s preference. For the gold coin, obverse #1 features a soccer ball with some of its panels removed to reveal a sculpted globe over North America. The FIFA logo is inscribed across the center of the ball, with the additional inscription “FIFA World Cup.” For the silver coin, obverse #1 depicts a soccer player actively engaged in a ball handling technique with the FIFA “Unity” logo behind. For the clad coin, obverse #1 features the image of a player executing a bicycle kick, against a background of the number “26.” For the reverses of each coin there are two alternatives proposed, with Alternative A being preferred by the liaison for each coin. She said the only difference between the two alternatives is that reverse #1A includes only the inscription “United States of America” in the list of countries.
Ms. Sullivan then presented the remaining sets. For set #3, she noted that #3B is the liaison’s secondary preference for the clad coin design. Regarding set #4, she said the common reverse is also secondary preference of the liaison; the set #4 reverse design depicts the official logo, the trophy featured in front of the number “26.” She concluded by noting that sets #5 and #6 do not include any preferences of the liaison, while sets #7 and #8 include only reverse designs.
Vice Chair Edwards asked if the Commission is being asked to approve a single coin set; Secretary Luebke clarified that the Commission can recommend any combination of designs. Ms. Sullivan added that the Mint requested that a single artist design each set in order to have consistency among the three coins, since both the Commission of Fine Arts and the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee have previously recommended that coins within a set have matching fonts and similar stylistic qualities. She reiterated that while the Commission can mix and match among the sets, the three coins will need to have a common reverse design.
Vice Chair Edwards suggested further discussion of set #1, the liaison’s preference. Mr. Becker expressed a preference for gold obverse #1 but said he could also support consideration of additional designs in the other sets. He asked if the FIFA trophy, which is made of 18-karat gold, would be gold in color on each of the three coins, or if it would match the coloration of each coin. Ms. Sullivan confirmed that the trophy would match each coin’s coloration, and she noted that the only difference between each reverse would be the denomination. She also confirmed that all coins are legislatively mandated to have the inscriptions “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” “E Pluribus Unum,” “United States of America,” and a denomination.
Mr. Lenihan observed that the depictions of the trophy vary by artist, and that on the preferred reverse in set #1, the globe at the top of the trophy is rotated to show South America, while others may show more than one continent. Regarding gold obverse #2, Mr. Cook said there is an inconsistency between the inscription “Football Unites The World” and the depiction of the globe as a soccer ball primarily featuring North America, even though he understands that the host countries are on this particular continent. He also commented that U.S. women’s national soccer team has been highly successful but is not being celebrated with any coinage.
Mr. Becker expressed a general preference for the coins with non-figural or abstract imagery; he also said he is not in support of the coins showing children, as their immediate connection to the coin theme is unclear. Ms. Sullivan noted that these types of coins can be used by organizations for fundraising; for example, surcharges on purchases of these coins will be paid to the FIFA World Cup 2026 organization for the purpose of aiding and executing U.S.-based soccer programs and activities, including the promotion of legacy programs and efforts to grow the sport with youth, inner city, and underserved communities. Some of the imagery therefore incorporates youth participation in soccer.
Ms. Delplace agreed with the previous comments and said she finds figural depictions to be difficult, given the diverse composition of the soccer teams. She expressed support for the designs proposed in set #5, characterizing them as joyous, fun, and modern, as well as interesting as a complete set. For silver obverse #5, she noted that the “Y” in the inscription “Liberty” looks like a “V.” Mr. Becker agreed that this inscription is a little hard to read, and that with improved legibility this could perhaps be his preferred design. Dr. Edwards asked if the coins in set #5 use any official logo developed for the event; Ms. Sullivan confirmed that the stacked “26” with the superimposed trophy seen on the reverse designs is the official event logo; the “2026” numerals seen on some of the obverses were likely developed by the artists to complement the official logo.
Ms. Cook said he had not initially considered set #5, but he appreciates the perspective of Ms. Delplace. He observed that the “2026” seen in clad obverse #5 is not centered on the soccer ball, and he recommended centering the number as it is on gold obverse #5. For silver obverse #5, he commented that the foam hand depicted at the bottom of the coin is odd and should be deleted from the composition. Dr. Edwards agreed that set #5 has a celebratory quality that is appropriate for a commemorative coin; she said that with the changes suggested, she could support recommending set #5 over the other sets. Mr. Becker said the official logo has more definition in the delineation of the numbers. Mr. Lenihan said he could also support recommending set #5. Ms. Sullivan said the Mint can accommodate the various proposed modifications, and that the liaison would be consulted to ensure the logos are accurate.
Vice Chair Edwards summarized the consensus to recommend set #5. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission recommended set #5 with the comments provided.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:17 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas Luebke, FAIA
Secretary