The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:00 a.m.
Members participating:
Hon. Billie Tsien, Chair
Hon. Hazel Ruth Edwards, Vice Chair
Hon. Bruce Redman Becker
Hon. Peter Cook
Hon. Lisa Delplace
Hon. William J. Lenihan
Hon. Justin Garrett Moore
Staff present:
Thomas E. Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Christopher Berger
Kay Fanning
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
Tony Simon
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 20 February meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the February meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission approved the minutes. Mr. Luebke said the document will be available to the public on the Commission’s website.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 17 April, 15 May, and 18 June 2025 (Wednesday).
C. Report on the 2025 National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs grant program. Secretary Luebke noted that this annual program is managed by the Commission and funded by a separate federal appropriation. Thirty Washington-based cultural organizations applied by the early-March deadline to participate in this year’s program, including five new applicants and all twenty-five of the participants in the 2024 program. The full funding of $5 million was enacted earlier in March, and the grants will be distributed among the eligible institutions using an established formula. The qualifications of the applicants will be reviewed by a panel that includes the chairs of the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities, or their designees; he anticipated that the panel will convene in early May and the grants will be distributed in June.
D. Release of the new CFA publication, American Shrines: The Architecture of Presidential Commemoration. Mr. Luebke reported the publication of the Commission’s latest book, a comprehensive study of memorials to U.S. presidents throughout the nation’s history. He said the multi-year project was the work of the Commission’s staff: Ms. Fanning taking the lead role in research and writing, based on decades of past work including her Ph.D. dissertation; Mr. Fox as the managing editor; and Ms. Batcheler as the illustration editor. The book is available for sale, and an associated public program may be scheduled.
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 reported that no changes have been made to the draft consent calendar, which includes sixteen projects as well as the reporting of four reviews previously delegated to the staff; the delegated approvals are for signage at several sites managed by the American Battle Monuments Commission. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee reported several changes to the draft appendix, which includes ten projects. One recommendation has been changed to be favorable based on revisions to the submission (case number SL 25-068). Other changes to the draft appendix are limited to minor wording changes and the notation of dates for the receipt of supplemental materials. The recommendations for four projects are subject to further coordination with the applicants, and Ms. Lee requested authorization to finalize these recommendations when the outstanding issues are resolved. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Moore, the Commission approved the revised Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Mr. Berger reported that no changes have been made to the draft appendix, which includes 33 projects. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission approved the Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
B. National Park Service / D.C. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
CFA 20/MAR/25-1, Poplar Point, between Frederick Douglass Bridge and 11th Street Bridge. Plan for the redevelopment of former federal parkland. Information Presentation. Secretary Luebke introduced the presentation on the redevelopment of Poplar Point, a 110-acre section of Anacostia Park in Southeast Washington. In accordance with the Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property Act of 2006, commonly known as the D.C. Lands Act, Poplar Point will be transferred from the National Park Service (NPS) to the D.C. Government in a later phase. The requirements for the transfer include: relocation of existing NPS facilities currently on the property; identification of two sites for future commemorative works; and ensuring consistency with the 2003 Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan. The site is mostly landfill on the former tidal estuary along the Anacostia River between the Frederick Douglass Bridge and the 11th Street Bridge; existing woodlands occupy approximately six acres, and nearly all of the site is within the 100- or 500-year floodplain. Existing functions to be relocated include the NPS National Capital Parks–East headquarters and operational and aviation facilities for the U.S. Park Police.
Mr. Luebke noted that the planning approach for the redevelopment is based on seven key principles, resulting in three alternatives to be presented. He asked Tammy Stidham, the associate regional director for lands and planning at the National Capital Region of the National Park Service, to begin the presentation.
Ms. Stidham said this project is important for the NPS and the District of Columbia. She emphasized that the planning alternatives are intended to provide a framework for locating development and open space; they do not address more detailed topics, such as building heights or massing. She introduced Whit Smith of the D.C. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) to continue the presentation.
Mr. Smith said he oversees the Poplar Point project on behalf of the D.C. Government. The project presents an opportunity to reconnect the adjacent neighborhoods with the Anacostia River; create a world-class park; bring amenities, jobs, business opportunities, and housing to the area; and create a destination. He said the development alternatives provide a first step in realizing this opportunity. He introduced Stan Wall of HR&A Advisors and Alan Harwood of AECOM to present the project’s background and the alternatives.
Mr. Wall noted his previous experience in the area over the past twenty years, including the master planning and environmental evaluation for the St. Elizabeths West Campus as well as the early stages of planning for Poplar Point fifteen years ago. The current work advances the Poplar Point project toward implementation, addresses the requirements of the land transfer legislation, and responds to the needs and desires of the community after a long period of waiting.
Mr. Wall presented the project background and requirements. The key goals for the planning process have included establishing a community-centered process that gives priority to residents in nearby neighborhoods; he said the residents are eager for Poplar Point to provide a connection to the waterfront. The intent is to reach out to the community and to incorporate feedback into the planning process in a meaningful way; outreach has included virtual meetings, a workshop, and an open house, with a site walk scheduled in the coming weeks.
Mr. Wall indicated the Poplar Point site, extending approximately a mile along the Anacostia River; Interstate 295 separates the site from the historic Anacostia neighborhood. Other recent developments along the Anacostia River and nearby areas include Hill East, The Yards, Buzzard Point, and The Wharf; all of these developments, along with Poplar Point, were anticipated in the broad vision of the 2003 Framework Plan, followed by numerous other studies and nearby public investments. The current planning effort is intended to respond to evolving market and site conditions.
Mr. Wall said the project’s purpose is to facilitate the land conveyance from the NPS by addressing the requirements of the 2006 legislation, which includes the goal of developing Poplar Point into a community amenity by providing a publicly accessible waterfront park with cultural, economic, and recreational attractions and activities. The intent is for Poplar Point to spur revitalization efforts east of the Anacostia River by providing a mix of residential, retail, and office uses, taking advantage of the proximity to the Anacostia Metro station. The project would also provide improved access to recreational amenities; the legislation requires that at least seventy acres be reserved for park purposes.
Mr. Harwood provided a more detailed description of the site and an overview of the planning alternatives. He noted his own recent role in the urban design related to reconstruction of the Frederick Douglass Bridge, adjacent to Poplar Point. He said the project team wants Poplar Point to help the Anacostia River become a unifying feature of Washington. Presenting the site’s history, he said that most of the project area was formerly underwater; by the 1920s, the river had been dredged and the marsh area had been filled, resulting in the 110 acres of waterfront land. The eastern part of Poplar Point was used for a U.S. Navy facility in the 1940s; the western part was used by the D.C. Government as nurseries for street trees, and by the Architect of the Capitol for greenhouses. By the 1980s, the NPS had taken over the former Navy facilities, and much of Poplar Point was a construction site for the Metro system; the Green Line tunnel passes beneath the Anacostia River and bisects Poplar Point, with the alignment marked by a linear mound several feet above the surrounding grade. He indicated the Metro station’s north portal and adjacent parking garage at the edge of the Poplar Point site. The tree nurseries were abandoned in the 1980s and have evolved into the existing woodlands on the western part of the site. He indicated the underground water systems and other utilities that add to the complexity of the site, including regional water and sewer lines as well as the piped flow of Stickfoot Branch. Scattered wetlands have formed near the former tree nurseries, constrained by utility lines; he said some of the wetlands are contaminated while others are thriving. Most of the site is within the floodplain, protected by an earthen levee along the river.
Mr. Harwood described the primary points of vehicular access to Poplar Point: on the east from Marion Barry Avenue (formerly Good Hope Road); on the south from Howard Road; and on the west from the recently created traffic oval at the southeast end of the Frederick Douglass Bridge. Anacostia Drive connects northeast to the upstream area of Anacostia Park and also provides an emergency connection beneath the Frederick Douglass Bridge to the military base on the west. Bicycle and pedestrian access is available along these roads and from the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, which connects to the bridge. He said that Poplar Point, like much of the Anacostia neighborhood, is known for its views of central Washington; important view corridors include Howard Road and W Street, which are aligned with the Washington Monument, and the northwest view toward the U.S. Capitol along the alignment of New Jersey Avenue. Nearby historic resources include the Anacostia neighborhood itself; Cedar Hill, the 19th-century home of Frederick Douglass; the swimming pool in Anacostia Park to the northeast; and the seawall along the edge of Poplar Point.
Mr. Harwood said the planning approach has been to study the existing conditions and constraints, to incorporate the best ideas from previous planning efforts, and to take advantage of the surrounding context. This context includes the rebuilt Frederick Douglass Bridge, which has become an iconic symbol of the city; the planned 11th Street Bridge Park to the northeast; the emerging Bridge District development area to the southwest; and the ongoing revitalization of the historic Anacostia neighborhood to the southeast.
Mr. Harwood described the seven general principles that were identified to guide the planning process. One principle is to expand the wetlands in order to protect and enhance the ecological functions of these critical natural areas. The intent is to connect and consolidate the wetlands to maintain and improve this area’s role as a special habitat, while it also serves as an educational feature so that children can learn about nature by experiencing it, instead of reading about it in the classroom. Stickfoot Branch would be daylighted as a surface water feature, an improvement that is important to the community. The second principle is to celebrate the geographic feature of Poplar Point itself, where the river bends at the northwest corner of the site; the intent is to emphasize the civic importance and symbolic beauty of this landscape feature as the setting for the Frederick Douglass Bridge and as a gateway to the Anacostia River by identifying an appropriate use for this prominent location. The third principle is to rediscover the shoreline, creating a special waterfront with a variety of amenities and activities; the waterfront would serve as a place of arrival and would establish a unique public destination for area residents. The fourth principle is to relate to adjacent large-scale projects, including the Frederick Douglass Bridge esplanade, the 11th Street Bridge Park, multi-use trails, and other nearby park uses, as well as the emerging Bridge District development. The fifth principle is to focus on Metro access, concentrating the highest density around the Anacostia station to take advantage of this public infrastructure investment; he emphasized that on-site transit access is a substantial advantage for the future of Poplar Point, although the station’s north portal is not well known to the public. The sixth principle is to connect with the Anacostia community, directly linking the neighborhood and commercial area on the southeast with the waterfront on the north. The seventh principle is to establish a primary corridor to connect development at the Metro station with the waterfront, establishing a central spine of street-level activity; this could occur in a number of potential alignments. He summarized that these planning principles provide a guide for balancing a variety of needs: protecting natural resources for environmental resiliency; elevating cultural assets to promote creative identity; providing recreational activities that are not currently available; fulfilling goals for housing and economic development; and creating a dynamic new neighborhood.
Mr. Harwood presented the three conceptual planning alternatives that are currently being explored; the resulting plan will likely mix their best components. Each alternative includes approximately seventy acres of parkland, two memorial sites, a publicly accessible waterfront, restoration of Stickfoot Branch, a net gain of retained and remediated wetlands, and improved connection to the Anacostia neighborhood, possibly including new access points. In any alternative, the existing NPS facilities would be moved elsewhere; he indicated potential locations on federal land to the west or south, which he said would not be discussed in detail in today’s presentation.
Mr. Harwood presented Alternative A, titled Greenway Connections. This alternative emphasizes the riverine character of the site: the wetlands area would be connected with the river, and Stickfoot Branch would be expanded to a 1,000-foot-wide opening at the shoreline, the most open configuration among the alternatives. A cultural use and memorial at the site’s northern point would establish a special node on the waterfront, and diagonal roads would be oriented toward this location. Open space would primarily be consolidated toward the west, and the wetlands would be traversed by trails and surrounded by a wooded buffer. A linear greenway would connect the wetlands to the 11th Street Bridge Park, and an intersecting greenway would connect the Anacostia neighborhood to the waterfront; he likened these greenways to Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, and Boston’s Commonwealth Avenue. Existing roadway connections would remain, with an improved underpass at Marion Barry Avenue and potentially a new, broad extension of W Street across I-295; a new land bridge for pedestrians would provide an additional connection to the Anacostia neighborhood.
Mr. Harwood presented Alternative B, titled Central Wetlands. This alternative focuses on an activated waterfront and development of a promenade with retail uses. The large expanse of wetlands would connect with the river through a 450-foot-wide opening; the wetlands would be established as a central amenity framed by open recreation space and buildings. Mixed-use development would be located on the point and along the waterfront south of Anacostia Drive. Each of the distinct open spaces would have a unique character, with natural wooded areas and wetlands to the west and a large community park to the east; these open spaces would be connected along the waterfront. The street configuration would adapt the gridded pattern of nearby neighborhoods; conventional roadway connections to the Anacostia neighborhood would remain.
Finally, Mr. Harwood presented Alternative C, titled Anchor Use on the Point. This alternative focuses on health and wellness; development would be set back from the river to provide an open waterfront punctuated with a range of recreation activities. He said that a special destination use would be located on the waterfront point, intended to complement the seventy acres of open space and be “aesthetically worthy” of its prominent siting. This alternative would connect the wetlands with the river through a 500-foot-wide opening; the wetlands would be framed by development, and additional development would be located at the west edge of the site. The waterfront and a central greensward would link the wetlands with a community park area and the 11th Street Bridge Park to the east. In addition to existing connections, this alternative proposes a pedestrian connection to historic Anacostia at W Street.
Chair Tsien expressed appreciation for the comprehensive and clear presentation, and she invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Moore said the development of the different alternatives is a promising approach, and the direction of the project should emerge from the preferences of the local residents. He said the conversations with the community should not just be based on the site plan diagrams of built and open space, but should also provide information on the topography in relation to the floodplain, which may affect the form and location of construction. He emphasized that the site section will be very challenging and will be critical to creating a positive, walkable, and desirable urban environment. The planning process should include resiliency diagrams and strategies, as well as the conceptual plan diagrams, as part of the public discussion. He also commented that the scope of development may include schools, which have particular needs for their associated open space; he suggested early consideration of how schools and their open spaces would be sited in relation to the larger plan ideas. He summarized his appreciation for the work that has already been done for this project.
Mr. Becker noted the site’s transit orientation and asked about the extent of housing envisioned for the development. Mr. Smith responded that the project has not yet focused on the distribution of density, which will be considered in the master planning phase. He said the needed density would be strategically planned in a way that fits the context, which includes the Bridge District and the existing Anacostia neighborhood. Community input will also be a major consideration, and suggestions have included using step-backs to reduce the perception of density. Mr. Becker commented that a decision for no housing, or for thousands of units of housing, should be determined at an early stage because it might affect the rest of the planning process.
Mr. Cook acknowledged that the project is currently far from a detailed stage of planning, but he suggested that the primary users of the Poplar Point development will be the people who live south of I-295; the major issue is therefore how to strengthen the connection across the highway. He said that, ideally, the highway would somehow be erased in order to truly blend the new development with the existing community. In contrast, an unwanted outcome would be a beautiful space that is used primarily by people coming from across the river and that is barricaded by I-295 from the adjacent neighborhood. He urged continued focus on connecting across I-295 with something pleasant instead of a dark, dank tunnel. Ms. Tsien agreed, commenting that the project provides a great opportunity to make the connection to the Anacostia neighborhood. She observed that the placement of the anchor use at the point in Alternative C places the most emphasis on attracting people from across the river and the least emphasis on connecting to the Anacostia neighborhood; Alternatives A and B appear to provide better opportunities for strengthening the southward connection.
Ms. Delplace said the alternatives are compelling, and she expressed support for making connections to the Anacostia neighborhood. She said the project would be helped by including an extensive component of urban environmental education; the Anacostia River suffered greatly from the past effects of nearby farming, and the river is now making a comeback. The environment is no longer natural but rather an urban condition with specific environmental needs, and this environment is important for children to learn about. She observed that the site would basically become a wetland that is surrounded by development, which could be used as a springboard for a community focused on environmental education; she urged making this an important part of the planning process.
Mr. Moore acknowledged the commemorative planning process that is part of this project, with the three alternatives illustrating different types of commemorative sites. He said that commemoration can include broader ways to address history, place, and narrative, as suggested by Ms. Delplace’s observations; the solution is not necessarily a site for a statue or other familiar versions of Washington’s commemorative spaces. He said conversations with the community would provide the opportunity to think more expansively about where and how commemoration happens in the landscape. The wider range of forms and expressions could include using the wetlands to tell the story of how this part of the city was created, or its military history, or the story of the people who lived in this area. While supporting the approach of reserving locations for commemorative elements, he encouraged broader consideration of features such as trails or viewsheds, or perhaps spaces incorporated within development sites; the commemoration could also relate to Poplar Point being an extension of the historic Anacostia community.
Mr. Moore commented that the New York City development area of Hunter’s Point South addressed similar challenges of incorporating wetlands, affordable housing, and a range of uses; he recommended studying it as an example for Poplar Point.
Secretary Luebke noted that Poplar Point was the encampment site for the Bonus Army marchers, a major gathering of World War I veterans; the Bonus Army was one of the first large-scale national protests in Washington, occurring with the advent of radio, automobiles, and highway networks. He said this history could be an additional topic in the broader consideration of commemoration that the Commission is recommending.
Chair Tsien said the Commission looks forward to future reviews for this project. Secretary Luebke said the Commission’s comments on the information presentation will be summarized in a letter. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
C. D.C. Department of General Services
CFA 20/MAR/25-2, Wheatley Education Campus, 1299 Neal Street, NE. New building addition and playground. Concept. Secretary Luebke introduced the concept proposal for a two-story addition to the Wheatley Elementary School, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Public Schools. The location is in the Trinidad neighborhood to the north of Capitol Hill. The historic school building, completed in 1903, was designed in a Renaissance Revival style by the prominent architect Appleton P. Clark, Jr.; it was originally named for the neighborhood but was renamed to honor Samuel G. Wheatley, a local businessman who served as a D.C. commissioner in the 1880s. The auditorium and other additions from 1921 were also designed by Clark with the D.C. municipal architect Albert Harris, and the campus was modernized in 2009. The proposed addition would house a child development center (CDC), replacing a small existing playground that would be relocated to the other side of the 1903 building. He noted that several years ago the Commission had approved a different design for this CDC, but contracting issues necessitated starting over with a new proposal.
Mr. Luebke said the proposed addition would locate administrative, service, and classroom spaces on the first floor and classrooms on the second floor. The addition’s general height and massing would be essentially the same as in the earlier design. He asked Derek Riley, project manager for the D.C. Department of General Services, to begin the presentation. Mr. Riley said that construction is expected to begin in the fall for completion by the summer of 2026, and he introduced Salo Levinas of Shinberg Levinas Architects to present the design.
Mr. Levinas said the existing historic building is a square, three-story structure; the proposed addition would be added to its southwest facade, accommodating the CDC for toddlers up to the age of two and a half years. He presented photographs and drawings of the historic building, indicating the strong delineation of the window openings. The intent is for the addition to respect the historic building by minimizing penetrations into its fabric and leaving the historic facade unaltered; a glazed double-height corridor would be located between the addition and the existing building. One existing first-floor window would be converted into a doorway into this corridor; another window on the second floor would be converted into a door onto a bridge across the corridor space, providing access from the existing building to the addition’s second-floor classrooms. The new floor levels and window widths would match those of the historic building.
Mr. Levinas said the CDC’s classrooms for toddlers are required to be accessible directly from the street, without requiring the use of stairs or elevators; the CDC would therefore occupy the addition’s first floor and one first-floor classroom in the historic building. The elementary school would continue to occupy the remainder of the historic building and would also use the second-floor classrooms of the addition. He said the addition would repeat the existing building’s rhythm of window openings, and skylights would be placed above the connecting corridor. The smallest mechanical equipment possible would be placed on the roof of the addition, behind a screen that would be painted the same color as the new brick.
Mr. Levinas indicated the alley along the southwest face of the addition; a public park is located across the alley, and the new addition’s broad southwest facade would be fully visible from the park. Access to the CDC would be provided from ramps along the addition’s northwest and southeast facades, ascending from the alley to each end of the new glass corridor; the historic school entrance faces Montello Avenue to the northwest, and the site’s existing playground would be relocated to the historic building’s northeast side. The addition’s fenestration, materials, and facade depth would resemble those of the existing school, but with a modern character. A different color of brick is proposed to distinguish the new addition from the historic building, and the glazed corridor separates the new and existing brick volumes. He indicated the places within the addition’s window pattern that would have solid areas of brick, corresponding to bathrooms and storage rooms; designs or patterning would be created in these areas of brick. He concluded with several perspective views of the proposal and context.
Chair Tsien thanked Mr. Levinas for the presentation; she recused herself from the discussion, and she invited questions and comments from the Commission members.
Mr. Becker said the proposed design is quite handsome. Regarding the proposed energy systems, he asked if the need for a mechanical penthouse could be avoided by using another energy source for the building, such as geothermal. He also observed that the addition would not have much shade and could become very hot; he asked if the project’s energy needs could be reduced by installing plantings along the southwest facade. He expressed support for the deeply recessed windows of the addition, but observed that their double height would exacerbate the lack of shade; he suggested consideration of modifying the design to provide improved solar control. Mr. Levinas responded that the addition would extend to the property line, which constrains the design opportunities; the alley does not belong to D.C. Public Schools, and the site does not include space for a geothermal system or additional trees. He said some of the energy produced for the historic school could be used, but this would not be enough to take care of all the addition’s energy needs. He said the engineering coordination is continuing for the mechanical penthouse, which would be as small as possible; it would be located at the center of the roof, where it would be difficult to see except from a distance. He added that the new windows would be made of double-pane glass and would have interior shades to reduce heat. Mr. Becker observed that the roof may have sufficient room for photovoltaic panels, and he said the design looks promising.
Mr. Cook agreed that the design is handsome, with a strong relationship between the addition and the existing building. However, he observed that the addition’s plan appears to extend one or two feet farther to the southeast than the corresponding corner of the historic building, which will be apparent with the two volumes being quite close to each other. Mr. Levinas said the design needs to comply with minimum floor area requirements for the classrooms; the initial layout provided only about ninety percent of the required area, and the design team’s conclusion was that expanding the addition’s volume toward the southeast would be the least intrusive and least visible solution. He said the difference in alignments would be difficult to perceive in the constrained space between the two buildings. Mr. Cook said the design is evidently trying to balance all these issues; with the effort to make the addition harmonize with the historic building, the differing length of these two volumes is unfortunate. Mr. Levinas offered to study this condition further.
Mr. Cook expressed concern that cars using the alley would pose a risk to the safety of children walking across the alley to the public park. He asked if a solution such as a gate could make the alley a safer space for children. Mr. Levinas said the CDC’s children are too young to play in the park; they would have their own playground on the site and would not need to cross the alley. Mr. Cook said he appreciates the consideration of this issue but could nonetheless imagine that on a beautiful day the children would still want to be able to walk across the alley to the park. Mr. Levinas said the design team has discussed this with a traffic consultant, but the school officials insist that their students do not use the park. Marco Vazquez of Shinberg Levinas Architects added that the alley would not be the main entrance to the school; vehicles would use it only for emergencies.
Mr. Becker asked for clarification of the arrival sequence for a parent bringing a toddler to the CDC, whether by car or by bringing a stroller from within the neighborhood. Mr. Levinas said most parents would walk their children to school, which is why a ramp would be provided next to the building in addition to the stairway, and a drop-off area would be provided for parents who drive. He reiterated that the CDC would have only two classrooms and is intended to serve a small number of neighborhood families. Mr. Cook described the likely sequence for parents arriving by car: they would park along the curb, open the trunk, get the stroller out, secure their child in the stroller, and then enter the alley to push the stroller up the ramp instead of using the closer stairway. He said he remains concerned about the safety of children in the alley, and this issue should be kept under consideration. Mr. Becker said an even greater safety concern than the entry process may be exiting into the alley after leaving the building.
Chair Tsien said the Commission members have provided good suggestions for development of the design. She suggested a consensus to approve the concept with the comments provided about access, energy, and the volumetric alignment. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission adopted this action. Secretary Luebke asked if the Commission wants to see the project again or prefers to delegate further review to the staff. Chair Tsien suggested that the issues raised could be worked out through the staff; the other Commission members agreed in supporting this delegation.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:12 a.m.
Signed,
Thomas E. Luebke, FAIA
Secretary