The meeting was convened at 401 F Street NW, Room 311, at 9:00 a.m.
Members present:
Hon. Rodney Mims Cook, Jr., Chairman
Hon. James C. McCrery II, Vice Chairman
Hon. Mary Anne Carter
Hon. Chamberlain Harris
Hon. Roger Kimball (via telephone)
Hon. Pamela Hughes Patenaude
Hon. Matthew Taylor
Staff present:
Thomas Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Christopher Berger
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
I.ADMINISTRATION
A. Return to In-Person Meetings. Secretary Luebke announced that by direction of Chairman Cook, the Commission has returned to meeting in person after six years of meeting remotely via videoconference. He noted that while all proceedings will be taking place at the Commission offices in Washington, D.C., the meeting would also be recorded on video and available through the Zoom platform for streaming only. He said that the Zoom meeting is not set up to accommodate remote comments or presentations. Mr. Luebke acknowledged there may be some technical challenges with equipment and requested patience with any audiovisual issues as the Commission works to return to normal operations.
Chairman Cook welcomed the Commission members and confirmed that these public meetings would consistently be held in person from this point forward.
B. Approval of the minutes of the 19 February meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the February 2026 meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Ms. Patenaude with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission approved the minutes.
C. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 16 April, 21 May, and 18 June 2026. He noted that these meetings would be held on the third Thursday of each month, consistent with the schedule published at the beginning of the year.
D. Report on the FY 2026 National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Grant Program (NCACA). Secretary Luebke provided an update on the NCACA program, a congressionally funded grant program intended to support medium- to large-sized arts organizations in the District of Columbia with operational funding. He said the program was established in 1986 and was originally administered by the National Endowment for the Humanities; the Commission of Fine Arts has administrated the program since 1989. Over the years, the program has received annual appropriations of about $2 to $10 million, with FY 2026 funding of $5 million. He said eligibility requirements include that the organization must be located in the District of Columbia, work in the presentation, performance, or exhibition of the arts at a professional level, and have a minimum annual operating income of $1 million, excluding other federal funds. The program has grown from approximately eight to twenty-eight participating organizations; all grantees from FY 2025 have applied for the current year. He said the program requires that the final list of grantees be approved by a panel consisting of the chairs of the Commission of Fine Arts, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The appropriated amount would then be distributed according to a formula that comprises both an equal distribution of the funds based on the number of grantees and a proportional distribution based on the revenue of each organization. He said that he expects to schedule the review panel meeting for early May, with grant distribution expected in June.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of each document were circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting.
Appendix I – Government Submissions (Consent Calendar): Mr. Hart said that no changes have been made to the consent calendar, which includes eleven projects. He also noted the delegated approval of three projects submitted by the American Battle Monuments Commission: wayfinding signage at both the Florence American Cemetery and the Sicily-Rome American Cemetery, and a new perimeter security fence and gate at the North Africa American Cemetery. Upon a motion by Ms. Carter with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix includes nine projects. In addition to small changes to wording and material receipt dates, there are four cases proposed to be held open for review in a future meeting (cases SL 26-070, SL 26-056, SL 26-057, and SL 25-141). She noted that staff is also waiting for supplemental materials for four cases and expects to continue working with applicants to resolve minor issues. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission approved the Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Mr. Berger said that the appendix includes thirty-four projects, and that there were no changes to the draft circulated to the Commission. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission approved the Old Georgetown Act Appendix. Secretary Luebke noted that the Old Georgetown Board has referred the Georgetown University Boathouse project to the Commission for review on the agenda today.
B. Executive Office of the President / U.S. Secret Service / National Park Service
CFA 19/MAR/26-1, Sherman Park / President’s Park, E Street and East Executive Avenue, NW. Visitor screening facility and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the project, submitted by the Executive Office of the President in cooperation with the U.S. Secret Service and the National Park Service, for a new visitor screening facility for the White House complex to support security screening needs for visitors, large-scale events, staff, and contractors. He said the project site is mostly within Sherman Park, which is located immediately south of the Treasury Building, at 15th Street, NW. The facility is intended to expand screening capacity, eliminate the need for temporary screening tents for events, strengthen campus security, and enhance the visitor experience. He said that the focus of the existing site is the General William Tecumseh Sherman Monument, a 1903 Beaux-Arts equestrian statue of the American Civil War general. Most of the proposed facility would be located underground on western side of the park, which is intended to reduce visual impact, with the entrance of the proposed facility located on the south side of the park. The below-grade area of the facility would be approximately 33,000 square feet and its floor level would be set roughly twenty feet below the grade of the park. Queuing for visitors would begin outside in a lower plaza, with pedestrians proceeding through the lobby to be processed through primary screening and then emerging via escalators or elevators through a new structure on East Executive Avenue. He asked Andrew Stohs of the U.S. Secret Service to begin the presentation.
Mr. Stohs said the facility would provide consolidated screening for the eastern half of the White House complex, serving visitors, guests, staff, and contractors in a modern permanent facility that deploys advanced screening technologies and processes to enhance the visitor experience. He said existing operations have relied on temporary structures and trailers, with visitors queueing at 15th Street and proceeding through a single lane for ID checks and security screening. He characterized current conditions as inadequate, with visitors waiting outside in the elements and with limited security technology in use; tents and equipment must be set up outdoors to accommodate larger events.
Mr. Stohs reviewed several previous studies conducted since 2010, including the possible construction of a tunnel leading from the White House Visitor Center at the Department of Commerce Building that proved prohibitively expensive, and a 2014 design closer to E Street that also proved too costly and had accessibility challenges. Additional iterations examined above- and below-grade options in various locations around Sherman Park and the north side of the Treasury Building, each with limiting factors regarding screening capacity, flow, or conflicts with existing infrastructure. He said the current concept represents twenty years of work to find the right solution, and he emphasized that with the entire east side of the White House currently under construction, there is an opportunity to implement the facility without future disruption to the campus. He asked architect Jeff Harner of AECOM to present the design.
Mr. Harner said the entrance, which would be carved into the south side of Sherman Park, would create a much-needed identity for the visitors. He said the strategic location on the south takes advantage of the site topography, which slopes fifteen feet from the northwest corner down to the southeast corner, allowing entry at the lowest part of the park with minimal ramping and retaining walls while also keeping the bulk of the facility underground. He said the proposed pavilion structure, to be located between the proposed White House ballroom and the Treasury Building, would also serve as an entrance for badged White House staff and contractors as well as the exit for the below-grade facility. The entry sequence would bring visitors from 15th Street into a plaza before moving down a ramp, allowing the park to remain open to the public, as it currently must be closed when tours are given. Screening for badged staff and contractors at initial checkpoints at perimeter fences would introduce further separation of visitors and employees. An emergency egress stair at the southwest corner of the site would also serve personnel working in the facility.
Mr. Harner described the sequence upon entering the facility: visitors would proceed through an initial ID check, then through a second ID check and pre-screening before entering the primary screening area. This area, an open space similar to airport screening that would accommodate up to seven lanes with current technology, is designed to evolve with future technologies by not using permanent walls or fixed lane divisions. The cleared visitor egress area provides opportunities for the Executive Office of the President and White House Tour Office to begin the visitor experience with exhibition spaces along wall surfaces as visitors proceed through the tunnel below Hamilton Place and ascend via escalators into the new pavilion on East Executive Avenue, on the cleared side of the complex. He presented cross-sections and views showing the relationships between the proposed facility and Sherman Park, including views at the entrance and the plaza, as well as a diagram of the entrance sequence. He noted that there would be three to five feet of soil above the facility to allow for plantings above.
Mr. Harner said the existing security booths on site currently provide a baseline for the architectural language of the above-ground structure, with limestone cladding and a granite base that would enhance the user experience as the first impression of entering the White House complex. He said the entrance plaza would feature curving granite walls to be compatible with Sherman Park; this would embrace the existing language rather than introduce an imposing new piece of architecture that would compete with the monument’s visibility.
Mr. McCrery asked whether the existing security pavilion at 15th Street and Hamilton Place would remain; Mr. Harner confirmed it would remain as a single ID checkpoint controlling the gate for staff and contractors but would not be part of the visitor screening process. Mr. McCrery asked if the ramp into the Treasury areaway would remain functional; Mr. Harner confirmed that this is correct, as the new structure would be constructed mostly within the East Executive Avenue right-of-way. Mr. McCrery asked if the egress stair within the park would have any above-ground structure. Mr. Harner said it would be an open stairwell with no above-grade structure, only a retaining wall with a fence; it would allow Secret Service personnel direct access to the facility through a gate, while also serving as emergency egress. Mr. McCrery asked for more information about the elements in the site plan next to the proposed egress building; Mr. Harner said they are the existing security trailers and temporary structures that will eventually be replaced with the landscape being developed in conjunction with the ballroom project.
Mr. McCrery expressed concern about both the length and height of the building, and he asked whether these could be made shorter. Mr. Harner said that the project team is currently examining this issue, noting that the front part of the building requires space for security equipment while the rear must clear the escalator run; another driving factor is the elevator overrun, with work underway to find an elevator meeting freight and passenger needs while reducing the overrun height as much as possible. Mr. McCrery encouraged aggressive reduction in the size of the building and noted that the structure’s prominence obligates it to be beautiful. He also questioned the height shown in the section drawings, noting that the ceilings seem to be twelve feet tall, with an additional four feet for the roof. He concluded that the building would be much too prominent for the site as proposed, commenting that it crosses the line from a supporting pavilion structure to a substantial work of architecture, thereby elevating the demand for architectural beauty.
Mr. McCrery asked about the height of the retaining wall at the E Street sidewalk. Mr. Harner said the wall would be approximately six feet at one location, with landscaping planned around it. He noted that the height of the wall could potentially be reduced, with the current design intended to maintain an appropriate wall height at the top without requiring guardrails. Mr. McCrery asked whether the wall could be reduced to forty-two inches. Mr. Harner said the upper portion would be forty-two inches and the slope could be eased as much as possible. Mr. McCrery expressed concern that a six-foot-high or even higher wall would feel unwelcoming to pedestrians along the sidewalks. Mr. Harner said the wall on the left side of the entry plaza could start very low and build up gradually to reach forty-two inches above grade at the appropriate point. He noted that visitors entering from 15th and E Streets would be directed into the secure area leading down to the visitor entrance. Mr. McCrery acknowledged this but continued to express concern about the wall’s presentation to the east. Mr. Harner said the team would continue to study reducing the height of the wall.
Ms. Carter thanked the team for its presentation, noting that the Commission had limited time to review the project but appreciates the walkthrough; she said the Commission takes security very seriously. She expressed concern about the pavilion on East Executive Avenue, agreeing with Mr. McCrery that it seems large, and she emphasized that it must be designed beautifully given its location between two beautiful buildings. Regarding the entrance, she expressed appreciation for the curving walls but questioned whether they would match the overall appearance of surrounding elements. She also expressed concern about the large expanses of blank walls, suggesting that artwork, carvings, etchings, or public art would make them less brutal. Mr. McCrery indicated the low curving site walls in the existing park, noting these elements are designed to hug the ground as low landscape elements.
Mr. McCrery cited the executive order on Classical and traditional architecture, and said that while AECOM is a talented firm, he recommends retaining an architect familiar with and committed to the Classical language of architecture. He complimented the planning and how understandable the requirements are in the design, but he emphasized that this is a substantial work of architecture that needs to be in the hands of someone very adept at Classical architecture.
Mr. Cook agreed, and he referred to the executive order and to recent articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times about rules of architecture and the review of projects by the Commission. He observed that the southeast walkway access is not necessary given the northeast access, and he suggested shifting it to align axially with the ensemble. Mr. Harner clarified that the paths shown are existing paths to the monument, and that removing the northwest and southwest paths is necessary to address security concerns and to elevate the ground to cover the facility without deepening it further, which would make escalators, stairs, and walls larger. Mr. Stohs added that the removed paths would otherwise lead to restricted areas, and he suggested bollards and chains could be used to keep the public in the plaza and on the walkways.
Mr. McCrery recommended keeping the paths and adding chained bollards across them to deter access, noting that this is a historic landscape and memorial listed in the National Register for Historic Places. He said he had not appreciated this aspect during the presentation and recommends that the team consult with their client to do everything possible to keep the historic landscape and paving. He acknowledged the need for bollards and suggested that when done tastefully and according to the executive order, such interventions could be very workable.
Mr. McCrery noted the strong symmetry running throughout the site, citing the axis through the Treasury Building portico to the statute of Alexander Hamilton and the Sherman monument, and he said that the offset entrance to the visitor center would contrast with this symmetry. He therefore recommended aligning the entrance on this axis, emphasizing that being below ground does not lessen the need to be in agreement with the context. He concluded that he supports the project but not the design.
Mr. Cook said that the design for the White House ballroom follows the vast extensions of the U.S. Capitol on the east and west sides, and that the Capitol Visitor Center would be a clear model for this project. He said the proposed facility is desperately needed and asked when interior plans would be available. Mr. Stohs responded that they have gone through several iterations since submission and expect floor plans to be set within several weeks. Mr. Cook encouraged the project team to study the Capitol facility, characterizing it as extraordinary and beautiful in adhering to architectural principles in place for several thousand years. He asked whether there would be an additional landscape plan beyond what was presented; Mr. Stohs confirmed that there would be. Secretary Luebke noted the potential for significant tree loss at the park and asked what could be planted over the new structure; he also noted that there would be substantial mechanical grates that would need to be shown in the landscape plan.
Chairman Cook thanked the project team for its presentation and said he looks forward to reviewing a revised design that addresses the Commission’s comments. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
C. D.C. Executive Office of the Mayor
CFA 19/MAR/26-2, Robert F. Kennedy Stadium site, 2400 East Capitol Street, SE. New stadium project. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design, submitted by the D.C. Government in partnership with the Washington Commanders of the National Football League, for a new stadium on the site of the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium. He said that demolition of the existing stadium would be completed later this year, with construction of the new stadium projected to be completed in 2030. He said the original facility was completed in 1961 to a design by George Leighton Dahl Architects and Engineers as the District of Columbia Stadium, later renamed in honor of Robert F. Kennedy. The stadium was officially closed in 2019 after serving for many decades as the home field for the Washington Redskins, the Senators, and the Nationals, as well as numerous other professional and collegiate athletic teams; it also hosted thousands of concerts and other events over its lifetime.
Mr. Luebke said that following passage of the federal D.C. Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium Campus Revitalization Act in January 2025, the D.C. Government gained jurisdiction over the entire site, which had been previously controlled by the National Park Service. He described the site’s important position in the L’Enfant Plan at the eastern end of the primary east–west axis centered on the U.S. Capitol and extending westward to the Potomac waterfront. The public square envisioned in the L’Enfant Plan for this site was immediately west of a proposed bridge across the Anacostia River, making it an important threshold into the new federal city from the east. He noted that the site remained generally unused until the early twentieth century, when riparian control and engineering projects made development feasible. Federal officials had considered various uses for the site during the first half of the twentieth century, leaving open views along East Capitol Street. The construction of the East Capitol Bridge in 1955 and the stadium in 1961 finally realized this important element of plans for the capital.
Mr. Luebke said the proposed new stadium would be on a 30-acre site, within the larger 180-acre RFK campus between the Anacostia River and the Kingman Park and Hill East neighborhoods. Following a District-led master planning process, the campus would be developed as a comprehensive mixed-use, transit-oriented riverfront community providing infrastructure, amenities, and connections to surrounding neighborhoods. He said the proposed stadium design’s two primary architectural forms invoke the image of the national capital: a monumental circular colonnade and a dynamic, dome-like roof. The colonnade would be composed of gently curved concrete ribs set on a podium with grand staircases to provide a strong civic identity. The shallowly curving saddle-shaped dome is intended to give sculptural form to the building profile, sweeping up at the north and south while dipping down at the east and west in deference to the monumental east–west axis; the curvature is reminiscent of the design of the open-air RFK Stadium. The dome itself would be made of a translucent fabric membrane set on cable nets anchored by a compression ring to give an open-air feeling inside, with a lighting program creating a glowing, lantern-like appearance when seen from a distance. He asked Brian Hanlon, RFK Project Executive with the D.C. Office of the Mayor, to begin the presentation.
Mr. Hanlon said the RFK Campus is a gateway to the city, with the potential to be a year-round community asset where the District’s identity can be celebrated. He noted the project has been reviewed twice by the National Capital Planning Commission, which gave it concept approval; NCPC’s preliminary review is scheduled for April 2026. He said the District has engaged the community in more than twelve stakeholder meetings and forums over the last year; residents and community advocates have consistently emphasized the importance of waterfront access, preserving open space, and minimizing traffic impacts—comments that have directly shaped site planning, circulation design, and open space strategy. He outlined the development schedule: utility infrastructure work and completion of schematic design in Spring 2026; design development completion in October 2026; below-grade permit submissions and construction beginning in early 2027; above-grade permit submissions following quickly thereafter; CFA final review in spring 2027; above-grade construction permits in early 2028; and construction completion in early 2030. He asked Andy VanHorn, director of real estate for the Washington Commanders, to introduce the design.
Mr. VanHorn said the project would bring the team back to the District of Columbia and its previous home at the RFK site. He described the new stadium as replacing the recently demolished facility with a new, enclosed, modern venue with a design that both delivers a dynamic fan experience and respects the location on the eastern end of the city’s monumental east–west axis. He said the design is dignified, symbolic, distinctly D.C., and would command respect while being welcoming and accessible year-round. He asked architect Lance Evans of HKS to present the design.
Mr. Evans said the project would be transformational: a state-of-the-art, 65,000-seat venue designed for year-round community activation that will anchor the eastern end of the city’s monumental core. He said the architectural principles developed include ascension, rhythm, compositional balance, and clarity of form—all Classically inspired and responsive to the importance of the location in both the L’Enfant and McMillan Plans. He said the project is intended to be a catalyst that enhances the public’s connection to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail, nearby recreation fields, and surrounding communities. He identified three core design drivers: born of the District as a true community asset that could exist nowhere else; inspired by the legacy of both the team’s winning culture and the sweeping curves of the original RFK Stadium’s architecture and its relationship to the monumental axis; and future-forward to ignite the ultimate home field advantage and entertainment venue.
Mr. Evans indicated the stadium’s location at the eastern end of the monumental axis, noting that this site was imagined as a public reservation for gathering and community events. He said the design would embrace this legacy as both a gateway and a complement to the public open space network of the city. He said the general site design considers this area a convergence between the ordered geometry of the urban street grid and the organic character of the Anacostia River, creating opportunities for layered landscape experiences connecting these two systems.
Mr. Evans described the dynamic roof form as a feat of engineering, with its highest points on the north and south and the lowest points on the east and west, giving deference to the east–west axis. This system does not need structural trusses inside the stadium; when combined with the transparent membrane, the design would create the most open and transparent domed stadium in the world. He said the colonnade at the building perimeter reinterprets this Classical architectural element and connects the dynamic modern roof form with the organic character of the ground plane, creating rhythm, order, and hierarchy. He said the colonnade rests on a plinth, with monumental steps and ramps on the east and west entry points, providing architectural presence on the primary axis facing the Capitol. On the north and south, the ground rises to engage the colonnade, creating an approach that is similar to the Washington Monument. This creates a dialogue and duality as one moves around the building, resulting in a form inspired by tradition and Classical principles but expressed through a contemporary language.
Mr. Evans presented renderings showing the approach from the festival plaza on the west, where the colonnade would frame the approach and the roof would curve down at the center, deferring to the Capitol. Monumental stairs would ascend into the stadium through an opening framed like a proscenium. He said views from the Anacostia River near Kingman Island show the roof curving down on the eastern end, with the strength and rhythm of the colonnade creating a powerful vertical language. The continuity and clarity of the colonnade would instantly link the building to this place, while the roof form as seen from aerial perspectives would maintain visual connectivity to the Capitol and Washington Monument beyond. The colonnade is symmetrical on the east and west, with the framed opening centered on the bridge as a welcoming entry into both the stadium and the city. He said the nighttime lighting strategy is intended to softly highlight architectural features like a lantern and is meant to be complementary to other significant landmarks in the city.
Mr. Evans said the material palette is intended to be clean and elegant. The transparent membrane roof would be an ETFE product, similar to the roofs at U.S. Bank Stadium and SoFi Stadium, that is proven and extremely lightweight, with the ability to span long distances while allowing connectivity to the open environment. A perimeter ring of opaque roof membrane would serve as a transition between the transparent dome and the colonnade structure. The vertical elements forming the colonnade would be concrete in a light tone to connect to monuments throughout the city. The curtainwalls within the colonnade would be composed of high-performance glass with anodized aluminum mullions.
Mr. Evans then presented the proposed site plan. He said the stadium would be accessible to pedestrians along the entire perimeter. The site slopes gently from the proposed festival plaza on the west down toward the river, with gradually sloped promenades connecting the plazas and entry areas. Primary entries would be on the east and west sides of the stadium, with secondary entries on the north and south centered on the fifty-yard line. The stadium would slope with the site, slightly higher on the west; the internal floor levels for the stadium would be lowest on the east and the highest on the west, aligning with the festival plaza. The landscape would flow upward into the colonnades, creating areas that span the indoors and outdoors. He said the elevation drawings show the balanced nature of the colonnade, with its rhythm and proportions working together to frame the ordered composition of entries along each axis. The south elevation shows the permeability of this entrance, with the glazed infill meant to recede and reveal activity inside. The building’s height defers to the Capitol, both in true height and in elevation measured from sea level. He presented section drawings showing the ascending monumental steps on the west that would connect to interior spaces, and the east plaza connecting down to the river; north and south sections show how exterior public spaces are woven into the colonnade, which would be accessible on both event and non-event days.
Mr. Evans said the proposed landscape considers the order and sequencing of spaces, with four primary exterior spaces anchoring the perimeter as pre-function space on event days and community assets on non-event days. The festival plaza is the primary open space, where sixty percent of fans are anticipated to arrive from the Stadium–Armory Metrorail station. The plaza would serve as the forecourt of the stadium, providing space for pre-game festivities. The monumental steps and ramps on the west are designed to be amenities with spaces to sit in the shade and look out to the city. The plazas at each cardinal direction would be linked by pedestrian promenades; the sequence of spaces would create different scales appropriate for different sized audiences. Existing underpasses surrounding the stadium, historically for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, would be converted to pedestrian-only passages, removing vehicular flow from pedestrian flow and creating gateway moments. He said the plaza at the eastern end of the site would be smaller than the west plaza and would also provide gathering space for pre-game festivities; it would offer opportunities to connect to interior spaces at the top of monumental steps and to the Anacostia River. The north and south plazas would be similar to each other in size and scale, with breakout spaces and buffer landscapes. The south would also feature pedestrian-only underpasses for connectivity to parking lots beyond.
Mr. Evans concluded that the goal is to create a unique piece of architecture for the Commanders, District residents, and the community, representing the people and places that have inspired the city, and enabling this vision of future entertainment.
Chairman Cook thanked the presenters, commenting that it would be a very elegant building with gorgeous grounds. He noted that former CFA Chairman Justin Shubow had written that the stadium should be explicitly Classical; he said he finds that the design hints at this strongly. Referring to the President’s executive order on architecture, he asked whether a building like Soldier Field in Chicago had been considered. Mr. Evans responded that the goal was to take inspiration from elements from the past but not replicate them. They therefore followed a design approach that applies the principles of Classical design but reinterprets its architectural elements to create a contemporary, modern stadium that does not replicate or mimic any style.
Mr. Taylor asked about potential entertainment uses and other activity on non-game days. Mr. Evans said events inside the building may include professional wrestling, dirt events, Olympic events, conventions, trade shows, and concerts. He said the building is intended to be the host of elite world events, while at the other end of the spectrum, spaces at the scale of the community would also be created for non-event times. Mr. Taylor asked whether there would be any public access to parts to the building, similar to the Kennedy Center, or if public entry would be strictly ticketed. Mr. Evans said tourists love to visit the home of their teams, and there is an opportunity to make the building accessible to fans and community members in a meaningful way, weaving it into the cultural landscape like the city’s museums.
Mr. McCrery said the location of the proposed parking garages is a major issue. He observed that the design team had created a signature building requiring a standalone presence, as shown in all renderings and described in comparison with other standalone buildings on the great east–west axis from the Lincoln Memorial through to the Capitol. However, the parking garage on the south side of the stadium seems antithetical to this design concept. He noted that the historic D.C. Armory building on the south of the proposed festival plaza helps frame the view looking east toward the stadium, and he therefore suggested mirroring the massing of the Armory across the plaza with the parking garage. He said this location would be close to the stadium and the western plaza and would relieve pressure from season ticket holders requesting surface parking space. He strongly urged that the parking garage not be built in its currently proposed location.
Mr. McCrery expressed appreciation for the Classical principles and said he admires the design, even though the team claims not to be imitating a particular style. He commented that the design resembles mid-century Modern public buildings in Washington, such as the Kennedy Center and the Madison Building of the Library of Congress, and he encouraged the team to own that tradition. He said that the colonnade defines the architectural character of the building, but that its continuity is interrupted at the east and west sides—exactly where the architecture should be the strongest. He characterized the resulting design as appearing to have been carved out with an ice cream scoop on the most important facades, stripping out the architectural character and replacing it with a flat, anodyne curtainwall characteristic of Philip Johnson’s work, and leaving the most important parts of the building to be materially and visually weak and thin. He challenged the design team to create a breakfront of some kind with the goal of continuing the colonnade in a more interesting way to fortify what is currently the weakest element.
Mr. McCrery also noted that many people would arrive by ride share, and he asked about drop-off circulation. Mr. Evans said a road loop had been added on the east side of the stadium to provide for pick up and drop off. Mr. McCrery emphasized the importance of getting significant numbers of people to the east side, as well as of providing weather protection for people entering at the east and west. He reiterated the critical importance of addressing the parking garage issue, warning it would detract from the stadium’s setting in the landscape, and he noted shadows created by the garage in the current renderings. He expressed appreciation to the District and the Washington football team for returning to where they belong, complimenting the quality of the architect and urging the project team to continue developing the design.
Chairman Cook asked Secretary Luebke about next steps. Mr. Luebke noted that this is a concept review with significant support voiced, as well as with two significant issues raised, and he asked how the Chairman wanted to proceed. Mr. Cook asked if the applicant could return at the next meeting to address the Commission’s comments regarding the parking garage and the east and west portals. Mr. Luebke clarified that the parking lot is outside the immediate scope, though critical to the overall project, and asked whether the Commission members were comfortable giving conceptual approval with conditions that these issues be worked on, or if they would prefer to not take an action. Mr. McCrery recommended not taking an action; Chairman Cook agreed, and he asked the applicants to return to address these issues, while noting the Commission’s strong encouragement and positive feelings about the project. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
D. Smithsonian Institution
CFA 19/MAR/26-3, National Zoological Park, 3001 Connecticut Avenue, NW. Arabian leopard habitat. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design for a new Arabian leopard habitat at the National Zoo, submitted by the Smithsonian Institution’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute. He said the new exhibit is intended to advance conservation efforts for this critically endangered species, in partnership with the Saudi Arabian Royal Commission of Al-Ula. The proposed exhibit would be located on a steeply sloping site along the upper part of Olmsted Walk, the primary circulation spine of the historic Zoo campus, and adjacent to the thematically related Asia and Africa Trails.
Mr. Luebke described the project’s two major components: an animal care building abutting Olmsted Walk and an extensive arched mesh structure enclosing the outdoor habitats. He noted that the public would enter the site at two points: from the west on a curving path through a tunnel; and from the north, adjacent to the animal care building beneath an enclosed animal transfer bridge connecting the outdoor habitat to the care building. The design accommodates the leopards’ preference for elevated positions above their territory, with rock work and trees placed within the habitats following a twenty-five-foot drop along the site. The animal care building would not be accessible to the public, although there would be a day room for the animals with exterior glazing to allow year-round viewing by visitors. He described the building as a simple, dimensional stone-clad volume curving in plan, with a more expressive roof form clad in interlocking metal shingles. He asked Michael Beglinger, director of planning, operations, and facilities at the National Zoo, to begin the presentation.
Mr. Beglinger said the project will transform a currently unused habitat area into a dynamic public exhibit and conservation center dedicated to the critically endangered Arabian leopard, which has an estimated total population of 120 individuals remaining in the wild and faces an extremely high risk of extinction. The Zoo has formally entered into a strategic partnership with Saudi Arabia to advance conservation efforts for this species; the work will encompass a comprehensive recovery strategy spanning breeding and genetic management, animal care research, and global education; the proposed habitat at the Zoo is an important component of that science-led recovery effort. The exhibit must accommodate at least two animals, with capacity to support additional animals temporarily as part of a long-term population management program. He said the Zoo meets and exceeds the rigorous standards for animal care, conservation science, and facility design set by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the organization that accredits the institution.
Mr. Beglinger said the project site comprises the unoccupied former American bison habitat and the “Zoo in Your Backyard” educational space, located in a high-traffic visitor area near the Connecticut Avenue entrance and between the giant panda and Asian elephant exhibits. The fully enclosed habitat areas would provide approximately 10,000 square feet of outdoor space that includes two public viewing areas and one off-exhibit habitat. Vertical volume is essential, as Arabian leopards naturally prefer elevated vantage points for climbing, resting, and territorial observation, requiring a maximum enclosure height of thirty-five feet, with twenty feet of clear, usable height above the exhibit furnishings. The design incorporates pools, waterfalls, heated dens, climbing structures, and specialized materials to ensure safety and durability. An adjacent 2,500-square-foot animal care building would support critical operations including holding areas, quarantine and cubbing space, transfer systems, and dedicated staff work areas; there would be no public access to the care building interior. He said the Zoo anticipates completing construction in the last quarter of 2028 to allow time for the leopards to adjust to the habitat prior to opening to the public. He asked architect Marcus Wilkes, principal at SmithGroup, to present the design.
Mr. Wilkes said the design team, in consultation with a habitat designer, had developed two basic planning concepts: a “destination” strategy, with one entrance and viewing areas from two sides, which offers better ADA accessibility but fewer viewing opportunities; and a “journey” strategy, with multiple experiences and viewing opportunities. As the journey concept proved difficult to execute on the steeply sloping site, the team proceeded with a hybrid option featuring a pathway through the site with two entrances—one on the west and one on the north—with a path going under one of the two habitats, looping around to create a space for viewing, and exiting on the other side. The care building and east habitat would be located on the low side of the site to provide easy access for emergency services. A buffer zone of planting and berming would minimize the visual impact to Olmsted Walk. He indicated the habitat boundaries, with the west and east habitats both connecting to the care building.
Mr. Wilkes said that the team surveyed buildings throughout the Zoo, examining materiality, retaining walls, existing building forms, and roofscapes. The team observed the building hierarchy along Olmsted Walk, with exhibition buildings that the public enters being very expressive, and background service buildings being more vernacular in character. The team also surveyed the types of enclosed, open-air exhibits currently at the Zoo, including the Great Flight Aviary and its superstructure of a center mast and tensile nets, and the Gibbon Ridge Exhibit, with its structure of multiple posts supporting tensile nets. He said the team considered two basic enclosure concepts: an arched mesh superstructure and a mast structure with tensile nets. The mast option proved problematic, introducing many heavy guy wires extending beyond the net itself, intruding on Asia Trail and requiring two separate habitats. The superstructure approach offered more opportunities for unobstructed views within the habitat and of the animals themselves, and it would allow for future adjustments to the animal program.
Mr. Wilkes said the team explored multiple massing options and roof forms for the care building. He said the day room requires ceiling heights of twenty feet, making it a very tall element within the composition, while the remainder of the building can be lower and would not be accessible to the public; the non-public part of the building also requires little glazing, with clerestory windows providing daylight. The proposed concept uses a version of the arched superstructure for the habitat enclosure and a sweeping gable form for the care building. The arched enclosure structure would follow the habitat’s edges and would stay behind the buffer zone along Olmsted Walk, stepping in height to follow the site topography while maintaining the thirty-five-foot maximum height to minimize the appearance of the habitat from Olmsted Walk; the sloping roof of the care building would also minimize its appearance from the walk where possible. He said a dimensional stone—either limestone or a Carderock-like stone—is being considered, with a green-colored shingle material in a diamond pattern for the roof; this would most likely be a copper flatlock roof system, although slate or terra cotta shingles are also possibilities. For the habitat mesh, a black-coated stainless steel is proposed, which would minimize its visual impact when viewing the animals, as opposed to stainless steel with a clear finish. The team is also examining the pattern of the mesh relative to the roof shingling to create a relationship between the two patterns. He presented a viewshed analysis of the proposed exhibit from several points along Olmsted Walk, noting that the berms planted with grasses and trees would buffer views of the proposed facility. The buffer zones and berms would range in width from approximately twelve to twenty-four feet and would vary in height.
Mr. Wilkes said that the team developed two primary palettes for the planting plan: one would define the Olmsted Walk berm and focus on native plants, grasses, and low ground covers; the other, internal to the exhibit, is intended to refer to the leopards’ native habitat. He noted that the historic railings along Olmsted Walk would be retained in some areas, with other sections being replaced with a slightly higher railing; the new railing may incorporate a screen to deter visitors from going over the berm and getting close to the habitat. He noted that concept designs for the proposed canopy shade structures are not fully developed, but that they are proposed for two locations where shade is needed for visitors. The primary function of the canopies would be to reduce glare on the west- and south-facing glass enclosures within the habitat. For the western shade structure, which would be visible from Olmsted Walk, a very minimal structure that carries a screen or a suspended metal trellis is being considered. An alternative option features a perforated metal panel suspended from a similar steel structure.
Ms. Patenaude asked about the gap between the siding and roof visible in one of the images; Mr. Wilkes said that these are clerestory windows and would provide light. Mr. McCrery asked about the orientation of the clerestories; Mr. Wilkes confirmed they would be north-facing and provide light only into the day room, not into the other care areas, and also confirmed that the day room is for animals, not humans.
Mr. McCrery commented that the vertical structures adjacent to the metal shade canopy seem large enough to hold up the roof at Dulles International Airport. Mr. Wilkes acknowledged that the supports for the mesh enclosure look large and said that the mesh must resist snow loads; however, he believes that these supports will ultimately be smaller than the renderings. Mr. McCrery said they would block views and seem very heavy-handed, and he suggested that the wood trellis examples shown earlier might be more appropriate for the Zoo, being much lighter and more biophilic in character than stamped metal as proposed. Secretary Luebke asked Mr. McCrery to clarify his comments regarding the vertical supports and canopy, as the large elements are supports for the superstructure, not the metal canopy. Mr. McCrery confirmed that he is recommending both that the supports be reduced in size and that natural wood be used for the trellises instead of metal.
Mr. McCrery expressed support for the proposed pedestrian tunnel within the exhibit and asked for more information about the potential visitor experience. Mr. Wilkes said it would be an interpretive area, though the interpretive program still needs to be overlaid and designed, including an entire interpretive package with signage. Mr. McCrery said he imagines this will be a very interesting space, and Mr. Wilkes confirmed the intent is to provide an opportunity for an enclosed experience for guests.
Secretary Luebke noted the Commission’s broad support for the project, with some minor design development issues raised regarding the enclosure supports and the shade structures.
Chairman Cook offered a motion to approve the project with the comments provided; upon second by Mr. Taylor, the Commission adopted this action.
E. Department of the Navy
CFA 19/MAR/26-4, Naval Research Laboratory, intersection of Smith Street and Magazine Road, SW. New biomolecular science and synthetic biology laboratory building. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept design for a new biomolecular science and synthetic biology laboratory (Building P250) to be located within the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Southwest D.C., one of the extensive military and public infrastructure facilities that stretch along the eastern edge of the Anacostia River. The NRL, which has been in operation at its current location since 1923, is a scientific and engineering command for the Navy and Marine Corps and serves as the primary laboratory for these agencies. The proposed site is currently a parking lot close to the river’s edge and is bounded by Smith Street on the west and a historic green space to the east. He said the design of the new laboratory is intended to convey a new period of innovation for the NRL. The approximately 90,000-square-foot, four-story building would be articulated with various types of cladding systems, including a palette of white and light-gray aluminum panels, glass fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC) panels, curtainwall, storefront, and corrugated metal panels set in vertical fins.
Brian Tiu, project manager for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), introduced the project on behalf of William Wolfe, the design manager, and Richard Brown, the NAVFAC liaison to CFA. He noted that they were joined by representatives from the NRL and members of the design team from Pond Michael Baker Joint Venture, the architect of record for this laboratory. He asked Lou Mittelman, project manager at Pond, to present the design.
Mr. Mittleman indicated the proposed facility’s location within the western section of the NRL campus, with Joint Base Anacostia–Bolling (JBAB) to the north, Interstate 295 to the east, and the Blue Plains waste treatment plant to the south; a roadway, a parking area, and trees would separate the building from the river to the west. He said the mission of NRL is to conduct scientific and engineering research for the Navy and the Marines. To enable this mission, a modern, adequately sized facility with an efficient layout is needed. He said the last campus master plan, from 2014, identified this site as a future development parcel; it did not specify a specific location for this program, but it did identify the need for either a renovated building or a new building. He said the master plan is in the process of being updated, although its progress has been slowed by policy and staff changes; he said the revised master plan would be submitted soon.
Mr. Mittleman said the project goals include creating a modern facility that ensures the continuity of NRL’s national security mission while preserving NRL’s green spaces, historic structures, and other cultural and archaeological resources to the greatest extent practical. He said one constraint is that renovating or replacing existing operational facilities would not be feasible, as this would bring research to a halt for several years. He said six sites were evaluated, and the options were narrowed down to Alternatives A and B. Some of the concerns with Alternative A included insufficient space; the required demolition of some historic structures; and ultimately the inability to co-locate some of the disciplines, which would hinder collaboration between the scientists. Alternative B was chosen because it had the necessary space as well as the appropriate standoff distances from the perimeter fence. He said the finished floor elevation will be above the 100-year-flood plain and the landscape will accommodate stormwater in compliance with federal and local codes.
Mr. Mittleman said the building would include labs, equipment spaces, administrative and support offices, storage and receiving spaces, and a mechanical equipment penthouse. Two small storage buildings would be demolished and reconstructed, and Building 34 would be demolished. He said the area of potential effect considered for the environmental and historic preservation review processes includes the National Register-eligible NRL Historic District and views across the Potomac to Daingerfield Island; he suggested there may be adverse effects to the viewshed from the historic quarters toward the Potomac River. He asked architect Jorge Mendez of Pond Michael Baker to present the design in more detail.
Mr. Mendez said the reinforced concrete building would include 89,000 square feet of program on four floors, with a mechanical penthouse framed in structural steel. Each level would have a floor-to-floor height of eighteen feet to accommodate the complex mechanical systems and to allow flexibility for future changes in the building’s mission. The building is organized by function, with office areas on the north side and lab and support areas along the interior and the south side. The west side would offer prominent views of the river and would house the main lobby on the first floor, with lounges, dining, and break spaces for building occupants on all other floors. He said the form is a simple rectangular shape with a variety of facade treatments that respond to the building’s solar orientation and interior functions to help break down the scale and create visual interest. On the north side, the main mass of the building would sit on a solid base, creating a clear distinction between the lower and upper levels, which would feature a floor-to-floor curtainwall system. The west facade of the building would be largely glass, offering panoramic views of the river. The south facade would feature punched openings of varying sizes, creating visual movement while allowing daylight into lab spaces where appropriate. The east facade design highlights a contrast in materials and composition with a curtainwall system on the north for the offices and metal panels where the utilities and support spaces are located.
Mr. Mendez said the material palette is intended to connect the building to the larger installation while incorporating modern, technically advanced materials for a forward-looking design. GFRC panels at the base of the building would emphasize a solid, grounded foundation; aluminum composite panels and a floor-to-floor curtainwall system would give the building a modern appearance. Vertical fins on the west elevation would help control sun glare while still preserving the main views of the river, and horizontal sunshades on the south elevation would help control sun exposure on the window openings; a corrugated metal panel screen system on the east elevation and mechanical penthouse is intended to visually connect the building to the campus, reflecting materials used on nearby buildings. Buildings 205 and 206 are small storage buildings that currently sit on the west side of the building site. Part of the scope is to demolish them for a new parking lot that will support the new facility; two new storage buildings would be constructed nearby and would be similar to the existing buildings, with load-bearing CMU walls clad in brick veneer with shed roofs.
Elen Poje, part of the Pond Michael Baker team, said a parking area north of the site would be expanded to accommodate the spaces lost as a result of the new construction. Exterior signage would designate the building number, and lighting would also be provided on the building and in the parking areas. She said 44 trees would be removed as part of this project and, in accordance with NCPC guidelines, would be replaced by 133 trees; 34 trees would be located within the parking lot and around the buildings, and 99 trees would be planted across the NRL campus as directed by site managers. The palette for tree replacement and bioretention facilities generally uses smaller trees that are native species, in accordance with NCPC guidelines.
Mr. Taylor asked for more information on how the building aesthetics relate to both interior functions and mitigation of solar heat gain. Mr. Mendez said the design intent is to match the function of the building with the building orientation. On the north side, it is primarily office areas, and that is why there is a curtainwall system facing north. The rest of the facility, including the building interior and south side, is where the research labs are located. He said the program includes multiple lab types, some of which are exterior-facing, but not all of them can have windows, which explains the fenestration pattern on the south facade. On the west, lounge spaces for the scientists working in the facility would take advantage of the views of the river from that end.
Mr. McCrery asked about the heights of the existing buildings to the north and south. Mr. Mittelman said that Building 208 to the north is also four stories with a penthouse. Mr. Mendez noted that the building to the south is a pre-engineered building, but they unfortunately did not have access to that building. Both buildings are lower than the proposed building, though they do not know the exact building heights.
Mr. McCrery asked about the historic district mentioned during the presentation and where it is located. Jennifer Wise, laboratory facilities planner with the NRL, clarified that two historic structures, Quarters A and Quarters B, are historic officers’ quarters that are currently vacant but which retain their historic appearance and designation.
Mr. McCrery asked about the NRL’s position with respect to the president’s executive order on Classical and traditional architecture, noting that the project appears to be in conflict with that policy. Mr. Mendez responded that the project started approximately three years ago, well before the current administration was in place, so at that time they did not have specific direction regarding the design. Mr. McCrery noted that the executive order is older than a year; Mr. Mittelman acknowledged that the project is behind schedule, and that several team members who used to handle these matters are no longer there.
Mr. McCrery said he has a strong appreciation for military architecture, and he cited its long tradition in the United States, from Fort Ticonderoga onward. He said that there is a legacy of wonderful military architecture at all the nearby installations, including Fort McNair and Joint Base Myer–Henderson Hall, and that he had hoped this project would be participating in this legacy. Unfortunately, the proposed building seems disconnected from the context and could be located anywhere; he added that only the people on the topmost floor of the proposed building would have a view over the adjacent buildings and enjoy views toward Washington’s monumental core. He commented that while the south elevation has some inventiveness to it and relieves visual monotony, this does not respond to the actual design challenge. He said this approach is seen for hotels and other contemporary architectural design projects, and that there is nothing particular about the proposed facade that is demanded by the program or site requirements. He said the west elevation is probably the most attractive simply because it has more variety, but all the elevations taken together do not accumulate to an attractive building or a noble work of architecture. He observed that the least attractive east elevation is the one being presented to the bulk of the people who work at the facility, while the west elevation would only be seen by people on or across the river. He concluded that the proposed design does not rise to the merit required of a noble research institution for the United States Navy, and that it should be anchored in the great and rich tradition of military architecture in the United States. He also suggested that the two storage buildings would benefit from hipped roofs to make them appear more compatible.
Secretary Luebke noted that while the applicant team stated it is seeking final approval, the project was submitted for concept review, and that this is the first time the Commission is seeing the project. Mr. McCrery commented that this puts both the Commission and the applicant in a tough spot.
Chairman Cook asked the applicants to take these remarks in mind and come back to the Commission as soon as possible. Mr. Mittelman acknowledged the comments with appreciation. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
F. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 19/MAR/26-5, Rumsey Aquatic Center, 635 North Carolina Avenue, SE. New building and landscape. Concept. (Previous: CFA 22/JAN/26-4)
Secretary Luebke introduced the second concept design, submitted by DGS on behalf of the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), for a new aquatics facility in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. He said the existing building opened in 1972 as the first racially integrated indoor pool in the city; it consists of a one-story headhouse facing a plaza and a tall one-story volume housing a pool, all set inside a high-walled yard extending to C Street, SE. This facility is now considered inadequate and will be demolished.
Mr. Luebke said the Commission reviewed an initial concept design at its January 2026 meeting, commending the public space enhancements and endorsing the general planning, but strongly recommending that the design team reconsider the approach by simplifying the expression of volumes to be more sympathetic to the surrounding context and the historic Eastern Market. He said the current proposal features a new building composed of a larger thirty-foot-high volume containing the main swimming pool, wrapped by a lower two-story volume on the north and west for support spaces. Design revisions include a taller main entrance volume to announce entry, and rooftop monitors to provide indirect daylight into the pool; two design options are included, each having slightly different facade and rooftop monitor compositions. He described the plaza design along North Carolina Avenue at the main entrance, which features interlocking planters providing additional space for market vendors, events, and other public uses, as well as shade trees and bioretention areas. Generous new sidewalks would flank the north–south alley to the east. He asked Peter Nohrden, senior project manager at DPR, to begin the presentation.
Mr. Nohrden said the team made significant revisions in order to simplify the design and ensure it fits within the context of Capitol Hill. He noted that the project has been the subject of three community meetings, with over 200 people at each meeting. He expressed appreciation for the Commission’s feedback at the first presentation and said he hopes the proposed design demonstrates the team’s responsiveness. He asked architect Rick Schneider, principal at ISTUDIO Architects, to present the revised design.
Mr. Schneider began by presenting examples of nearby buildings by architect Amy Weinstein, as recommended by the Commission, characterizing her approach to massing as breaking down larger masses into smaller ones while maintaining clarity of form, and also noting her use of decorative brick. He cited the Victorian proportions, metal panels paired with brick in traditional coursing patterns, and ganged windows. He said additional precedents include the clerestory windows in the existing Eastern Market, brick rustication on an addition to the Phillips Collection in Dupont Circle, and ribbed or corduroy brick that provides texture to larger expanses of brick. He also cited the Penn Theater on Capitol Hill as an example of announcing entrance by projecting the entry mass out and up, with a welcoming canopy, and the Restoration Church on Capitol Hill, which features a larger entrance mass that stands proud of the main building and includes two-story windows.
Mr. Schneider first presented Option A, describing the site plan as having a main plaza at the north side that includes stormwater management planters. The building would consist of a two-story structure wrapping a high space containing the main swimming pool. Compared to the existing building, the new footprint has been pulled back and tightened, even though the building area would be fifty percent larger than the existing facility. The design includes extensive green roof areas to manage stormwater and comply with local regulations. He said that the roof monitors would be in line with the window bays on the east facade, and that the bay form is common in D.C. The main entrance would feature massing similar to that seen at the presented church and theater precedents, providing a gateway to this community amenity and matching the scale of the pool volume. He said the design takes an architectural approach appropriate for a civic building while drawing from Capitol Hill detailing, including ribbed brick with a rusticated pattern similar to Classical architecture, and ganged windows. Double-height windows are incorporated, and bands of contrasting brick would tie the building together.
Mr. Schneider said the ground floor plan includes the pool, locker rooms, and the main entrance. Upon entering, visitors would experience a two-story lobby with glass providing a visual connection to the pool. The second story includes a gallery overlooking the pool area. He noted that program spaces were moved to the northeast corner of the second floor, allowing for the completion of the two-story perimeter volume. He noted that several bays of Eastern Market would be visible from the northwest due to the proposed building’s massing, and that part of the south side’s massing steps back in response to the smaller-scale residential buildings adjacent to the large pool volume.
Mr. Schneider presented the elevations, with the north elevation featuring the large entrance, double-height windows with a two-to-one proportion, and paired windows with mullions, matching interior functions. The brick types include the red brick common in Capitol Hill, with darker courses providing subtle texture to the main facade. The two-story volume would have smooth brick, while ribbed or corduroy brick would be used on the pool volume, with bronze or dark-bronze storefront throughout. The south elevation features bay windows similar to those on the east facade. For the main plaza, shade trees under consideration include river birches, London plane trees, or American sycamores.
Mr. Schneider then presented Option B, which features a similar volumetric treatment but with different approaches to the brick facade and roof monitors. He said the roof plan is essentially identical, but the roof monitors have a different form. Instead of bay windows, the design uses two-story windows in the pool volume, with bronze-colored perforated metal screens to control glare, which is a significant problem in aquatic facilities. Patterned brick would be used at different scales, with smaller-scale patterns set between larger patterns, similar to Ms. Weinstein’s work; contrasting dark brick would be used at the cornice. He said the roof monitors would be angled at the ends to reduce their street presence, creating a more traditional hipped roof profile on the large volume. The plaza approach is similar to Option A, with structured stormwater management, native ground plantings, and shade trees; the pattern of the plaza’s brick banding would be subtle, with low contrast.
Chairman Cook commended the team, commenting that the proposal represents an extraordinary jump forward and that the team clearly listened to the Commission’s previous comments. He also expressed appreciation for the sensitivity to Eastern Market and surrounding buildings. Ms. Carter noted her strong preference for Option B when compared to Option A.
Mr. McCrery agreed with the positive comments, but expressed a preference for Option A, finding that it has a better balance of vertical and horizontal elements. For the roof monitors, he suggested developing a design that uses the sawtooth configuration seen in A but without the tapered ends; he also encouraged increasing the number of monitors to five. Mr. Schneider responded that their first approach was to have five monitors, and he said that they would explore this with the client to find a way to achieve this, possibly by reducing glazing in the middle sections. Mr. McCrery said he would support either Option A or Option B, and Ms. Carter said she would also support Option A.
Mr. Cook offered a motion to approve Option A, with the recommendations to use sawtooth roof monitors without chamfered corners and to explore increasing the number of monitors from three to five; upon second by Mr. McCrery, the Commission adopted this action.
2. CFA 19/MAR/26-6, Whittier Elementary School, 6201 5th Street, NW. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept proposal, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS), for renovations and additions to Whittier Elementary School in the Manor Park neighborhood. The original three-story school was designed by D.C. municipal architect Ward Brown and opened in 1926. The school was expanded in 1931 to sixteen classrooms, with an auditorium built several years later; other expansions occurred in 1968 and in 2012. He said the site has a fairly steep slope, dropping roughly twenty feet diagonally from northwest to southeast, with a playground, gardens, and parking areas on the west, another playground on the east, and the remainder of the site occupied by the school building. The proposal includes demolition of both the 1968 and 2012 additions and construction of a new four-level addition, containing classrooms, a new cafeteria, a new gym, and support spaces, attached to the existing school via a three-story glass connector that would create a new entrance. Although the addition would be four stories, it would step down the hill, resulting in a height slightly less than the historic building; the project would almost double the size of the facility. He asked architects Paul Lund and Shayne Pintur of Hord Coplan Macht to present the design.
Mr. Lund described the existing conditions and neighborhood context: the duplex houses that line 4th Street, NW, across from where the addition would be located; a church across the rear alley; and the brick rowhouses that generally surround the site. He said the project team has worked with the D.C. Historic Preservation Office (HPO) to determine the contributing historic elements of the existing building, particularly the front entrance and two notable two-story fenestration elements with stone surrounds on both the east and west facades; the one on the east had been covered by the 1960s addition. The protection of these features, along with the sequence of entry into the original building, were of particular interest to HPO. The concept proposes a substantial four-story, sixty-foot-tall addition, as well as retention of the historic entrance as a secondary entrance. The design would transform the old multipurpose auditorium into a library, preserving the sequence of movement from the historic front door through the building into that space. A new entrance with security and modern infrastructure would be created in a glass connector between the historic building and the addition.
Mr. Lund presented the proposed floor plans, noting that the lowest level would contain services areas and the cafeteria, along with an outdoor classroom and dining area for students that would activate Sheridan Street; students currently access additional fields at the campus across the street via a crosswalk. He said the new lobby would be within the glass hyphen structure set between the historic building and the addition. The historically significant fenestration element would be visible as visitors pass through security. He noted that the project has received a grant from the U.S. Forest Service to use American mass timber, which would be showcased throughout the project. Mass timber would be used from just above the first level for the floors, beams, and columns, including in the gym ceiling.
Mr. Lund said the new addition would have a three-part composition, with brick at the base, a middle section of copper panels and glass, and a top section with metal panels and a small cornice; the lighter material at the top is intended to visually reduce the height, and the light-colored banding wrapping the second and third levels would be cast stone. He said that the project team studied the existing building’s fenestration cadence and proportions, which were then interpolated in a playful way that alludes to the bright colors the school previously painted on some of the facades to bring liveliness to the old building.
Mr. Pintur described the landscape design, in which the historic entrance would remain in place as a secondary entrance, with a new accessible walk along the front of the school. The new main entrance would be elevated off the street, reached by a monumental stair and an accessible ramp. The cafeteria on the lowest level would have an outdoor plaza, with terraced bioretention areas and plantings stepping down to that level within the school perimeter. The largest play area on the west side would accommodate ages 5 to 12 with play structures, a traffic garden path, a small turf soccer field, and a large bioretention area. The early childhood education play area would be located in the courtyard between the current gym, future library, and new gym; staff parking would occupy the site’s southwest corner. He said that in accordance with the District’s net-zero energy requirements for public buildings, the design incorporates extensive roof-mounted photovoltaic panels on the new construction, and solar canopies to shade play structures and parking areas.
Mr. Pintur said existing trees include sycamores, northern red oak, overcup oak, honey locust, Kentucky coffeetree, Japanese zelkova, and red maple, many of which would remain. Some large existing trees very close to the historic building are in poor health and would need to be removed to facilitate necessary facade restoration, but new trees would be planted throughout. The planting palette features native and adapted species offering seasonal interest, habitat benefits, and pollinator value, including trees such as red oaks, serviceberry, and sweetbay magnolia; shrubs such as inkberry, red twig dogwood, hydrangea, and Virginia sweetspire; and perennials such as amsonia, aster, baptisia, monarda, rudbeckia, and several milkweed varieties. An existing pollinator garden along 4th Street would be supplemented with additional plantings in the public space area outside the property line and the school perimeter fence.
Chairman Cook said the Commission has repeatedly advocated applying the federal executive order regarding Classical and traditional architecture to D.C. school buildings, and he finds that the design honors this to a degree, citing the use of cast-stone banding; he asked if the new brick would match that of the original building. Mr. Lund said that HPO typically recommends that new brick be slightly different from, but compatible with, historic brick.
Mr. Cook complimented the execution of the walkway bridge within the new hyphen, noting that it would honor the historic door and window element on the east facade. However, he noted that the offset cadence of the windows within the new addition does not emulate the historic school, and he asked for more information about this approach to the fenestration. Mr. Lund responded that the goal was to be respectful to the scale of surrounding houses; as the new addition would be a story taller than the 1960s addition that would be demolished, the design team employed various strategies to break down the scale, including using textured metal panels and a playful fenestration cadence to suggest an elementary school, while the copper color would reflect light and recall the historic building.
Mr. Cook said he has no objection to the use of a glass hyphen to connect the old and new buildings or with the treatment of fourth floor; however, he suggested that the fenestration at the second and third floors should emulate the window configuration of the historic building
much more closely, with windows aligning and brick matching as closely as possible. Regarding the cast-stone framing element, he said the topmost horizontal would be acceptable, but he would suggest removing the lower horizontal band in order to blend the addition more harmoniously with the original Neo-Georgian building.
Ms. Carter questioned the top floor treatment, noting that while this contrasting treatment is intended to visually lower the building height, it still appears to align with the existing building, and she questioned why it would be necessary to visually reduce the height. Mr. Lund said the proposed metal in a medium-gray color is intended to make the top story visually recede into the sky and provide some relief to the lower-scale residential duplexes across 4th Street; Mr. Pintur noted that the top floor is also set back from the lower floors.
Mr. Lund then reviewed key elements of the design for Mr. McCrery, who had left during the lunch break and returned during Mr. Cook’s initial comments on the project; Mr. McCrery then asked several detailed questions about materials and design elements. Regarding the metal cladding panels, Mr. Lund said they would be copper and that the mass timber structure would be visible through taller glass windows within the glass hyphen. Regarding the windows in the new addition, Mr. Pintur clarified that the lower window sections would be opaque spandrel panels to allow for casework within the classrooms. Regarding the cast-stone banding, Mr. Lund said the intention was to break down the four-story addition into three parts to help mitigate the scale and to avoid overwhelming the 1920s building while maintaining a civic quality for the building.
Mr. McCrery said that it is hard to get architecture to “play,” as Mr. Lund had suggested, and that he would rather let children do that. He said he prefers letting children provide playfulness while school buildings maintain a civic seriousness on the exterior, with inventive elements such as the proposed mass timber enlivening program-related activity on the interior. He also expressed support for restoring the window and door element on the east facade. However, he said that given the high quality of the historic building, he would expect the design caliber of the addition to be equally high, whether or not also applying the same architectural style. He cited the extension of the original Dulles International Airport, for which it was insisted that the same exact design be used, and he questioned why architects argue that contemporary additions must match certain existing buildings but must not match others. He said the renovation of the entire interior of the historic building already makes it contemporary, so he sees no need for the exterior to announce its contemporaneity. He said that while he does not mind the glass hyphen, he would like to see the architectural caliber of the addition be commensurate with the existing historic architecture.
Chairman Cook thanked the members of the applicant team and said he looks forward to seeing them return as soon as possible. Secretary Luebke summarized that the Commission’s comments include the suggestion to make the classroom addition more harmonious with the original building, particularly in its window arrangement and brick color. Mr. McCrery suggested that even the massing should be reconsidered. Ms. Patenaude commented that there are essentially two different buildings being created rather than one cohesive design.
G. D.C. Department of Buildings—Old Georgetown Act
OG 25-252, Georgetown University Boathouse, 3500 Water Street, NW. Construction of a new boathouse. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept proposal, submitted to the Commission under the Old Georgetown Act by the D.C. Department of Buildings, for a new boathouse for Georgetown University. The boathouse would be located on the Potomac River immediately west of Key Bridge, on the site of the current Key Bridge Boathouse. The existing facility consists of a small service building and an open gravel lot previously controlled by the National Park Service and operated by a private concessionaire. To facilitate the project, the National Park Service has transferred jurisdiction of the parcel to the D.C. Government, which is working with Georgetown University to develop the new boathouse.
Mr. Luebke said the Commission’s review proceeds from the Old Georgetown Board (OGB) review of the project at its public meeting of 5 March 2026, when the Board recommended approval of the concept design with the condition that the applicant return for review at the design development phase to resolve minor issues regarding the proposed material palette and solar roof system. The proposed design represents the culmination of two reviews by the OGB, during which the design was refined to be more picturesque and Victorian in spirit, with steeper gables, deeper projecting balconies with substantial brackets, and half-timbering details—all drawing upon the tradition of university boathouses in the northeastern United States. He said the Board’s approval recommendation includes a request for more information regarding the potential use of solar shingles, including maintenance details and proposed locations for equipment and conduits. He asked William Kirwan, principal at Muse/Kirwan Architects, to present the design.
Mr. Kirwan said the functions of the existing Key Bridge Boathouse facility on this site would be relocated further west, to a site between the Aqueduct Bridge abutment and the Washington Canoe Club. Site constraints for the new university boathouse include several fifteen-foot easements around Key Bridge to allow for maintenance access. In addition, an eight-foot view corridor easement along the west side of the property is requested by the D.C. Office of Planning, and a public launch for paddle sports, accessed by a series of ramps and positioned near the shoreline, is also proposed. Georgetown University’s river access would be on the east side of the building via an abutment, gangway, and floating dock; the dock would be 180 feet long to accommodate three eight-person shells at once. He noted that Georgetown University has one of the largest crew programs in the country, with 100 students between the men’s and women’s crew teams; the teams worked with the design team to establish minimum requirements for storing the team’s sixty-two boats, which are a mix of eight-person, four-person, pair, and single shells.
Mr. Kirwan said the lower level would include shell and oar storage as well as an excavated area under the building yard along Water Street; this level would provide access to the river. The second level would consist primarily of the entrance and stair hall, with the upper story of the shell storage bays visible from windows along the street. The main entrance would be located on the far west end, with windows on two sides providing visibility to the river, along with an elevator and an operations office that would serve as a control point for visitors. The upper level would be primarily for team training and would feature a multipurpose room for indoor training on ergometers and other equipment, as well as a small classroom for small group meetings and instruction. A multipurpose room would also accommodate larger whole-team meetings. A coach’s office is positioned on the southeast side of the building, with river views from both the classroom and the coach’s office. The rest of this level would also include bathroom and locker room facilities. He said two projecting gables on the south side would create covered porches for the outdoor deck at the second level, with center part of the deck between the gables open to the sky. A part of the north-facing slope of the main roof would be cut out to hide mechanical equipment, which must be elevated above the floodplain. He presented precedent images showing shell storage bays at Hubbard Hall at the U.S. Naval Academy, which his firm helped renovate, as well as examples of characteristically rustic multipurpose rooms at Hubbard Hall and the Potomac Boat Club.
Mr. Kirwan said the building elevations are inspired by the Victorian character common in the history of boathouses, including collegiate and private club boathouses such as those comprising Boathouse Row on the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia. The proposed building would feature a fieldstone base, similar to the stone on the aqueduct abutment, with cedar shingles as the primary cladding material. Substantial brackets would support the visual weight of the projecting gables, which would have half-timbered detailing with painted trim. Small ventilation cupolas on the roof ridge would consolidate the mechanical ventilation pipes, and the chimney would vent the fireplace in the multipurpose room on the upper level. He said a standing-seam metal roof was the starting point for the roof design; however, the project team is exploring the use of Tesla brand solar shingles; these shingles are composed of both active solar-collecting shingles and blank shingles, with the active shingles placed where logical on the roof and blank shingles used for angled and trim pieces. He said his firm has used this product on a private residence in Chevy Chase and found it successfully emulates the appearance of slate.
Mr. Kirwan said the building height, as measured from Water Street, would be thirty-nine feet, below the maximum of forty feet suggested during consultation with stakeholders. He said the Water Street facade draws inspiration from the arches seen on Key Bridge and the nearby Aqueduct Bridge abutment; the arch form is used to create windows opening into the shell storage bays, which would help communicate the building’s purpose to the public; these windows are also operable and would be used for both ventilation and for emergency use when the ground floor floods, which happens with some frequency along the riverbank. The entrance to the building would use this same arch form. Twelve-inch-tall letters identifying the university and the address would be placed on this facade, with space reserved for a donor name plate.
Mr. Kirwan presented a section drawing showing the water line and gangway up through the shell storage bays, the underground storage area of the lower level on the Water Street side, and the multipurpose room featuring timber trusses. He also presented several renderings showing the building’s relationship to context, including views from the water looking northwest showing Georgetown’s dock, with the extension where wakeless launches would be parked, as well as the public boat launch closer to the shoreline. He noted that painted aluminum doors and windows would be traditionally detailed to look like wood, but that aluminum would be more durable in the riverine environment.
Mr. McCrery asked whether the OGB had seen the physical model, and Secretary Luebke confirmed that it was presented two weeks ago; he also noted that all three OGB members visited different installations of the solar shingles to evaluate them for this project. Mr. McCrery asked if the design team prefers the use of a standing-seam metal roof; Mr. Kirwan said that a standing-seam roof was the starting point for the design, but that the requirement for on-site renewables led them to consider rooftop photovoltaics. He said the design team would ideally not like to see solar panels sitting on top of the standing-seam metal roof, so the Tesla option was brought forward. Mr. McCrery said the traditional standing-seam roof is compelling in the drawings, and he asked whether photovoltaics could be used elsewhere on the Georgetown campus, allowing for the use of a standing-seam roof. He also asked about the gable details, with Mr. Kirwan confirming that they would be timber-framed with shingle panels. Regarding the brackets and railings, Mr. Kirwan said they will probably use a mix of wood and PVC, with the bracket details supporting the overhang of the roof eave likely being true wood timber. The exterior trim will be discussed as the project moves forward, but the shingles would be natural cedar and the stone would be a Carderock veneer.
Ms. Patenaude asked about trailer access; Mr. Kirwan said that Georgetown received permission from the District to use an area under Key Bridge for trailer storage, with a fenced-in area connected to the abutment enclosing an area for storing three trailers. Shells would be lifted onto the dock, brought up via the ramp, and loaded onto trailers on Water Street. Ms. Patenaude asked about potential flooding of the boathouse; Mr. Kirwan said the building will flood and is designed accordingly. He said that tours of boathouses up and down the East Coast revealed that when a building is in a floodplain, the choices are either wet or dry floodproofing, or some mix. He noted that all the buildings they toured employ wet floodproofing, in which water is allowed in and the facility is cleaned up afterwards. He said the upper story would be above the floodplain, but the shell storage bays and entry level will get wet at times.
Mr. McCrery offered a motion to adopt the report of the OGB, with a strong preference for a standing-seam metal roof in lieu of the solar shingles; Ms. Patenaude seconded the motion. Secretary Luebke asked if the Commission would want to see the project again or if it would like to delegate further review to the OGB, noting that the Board would carefully consider the roofing question. Mr. McCrery said that if the OGB were to disagree with the Commission on the roofing issue, the Commission would want to see it again. He reiterated that the design is much stronger as a boathouse and as a work of architecture with a standing-seam metal roof than with solar shingles, noting that the scale would be inappropriate for the building, especially given that the cedar shingles would establish a much finer scale; the solar shingles are approximately twelve times the scale of one cedar shingle. Secretary Luebke noted that this kind of detail would normally be delegated, but if the Commission feels strongly about this issue, it could incorporate the recommendation for a standing-seam roof only into the motion to approve the project. Mr. McCrery amended his motion accordingly; upon second by Ms. Patenaude, the Commission adopted this action.
Prior to the final case of the day, Chairman Cook provided some remarks regarding topics related to the Commission that had recently been in the news. He said that, following the seating of its new members, the Commission has been consistent in its application of hierarchy and order as established by the rules of architecture, and he expressed hope that this clarity would help guide the District of Columbia Government so project applicants will not need to be sent back repeatedly if they do not adhere to the president’s 2025 executive order mandating Classical and traditional architecture for federal buildings.
Chairman Cook then cited a Washington Post article about the rules of Classicism and architectural hierarchy, which he said have existed for several thousand years and which the Commission is dedicated to honoring. He noted that while the article itself was quite good and served as an exercise in understanding these rules, the headline—“Appointee Wants to Replace White House Columns with the Ones Trump Prefers”—misrepresented the issue. He said that since then, a White House spokesperson has clarified that while the President prefers Corinthian columns in new construction, there are no plans to change the existing Ionic columns on the north portico of the White House. Mr. Cook noted that the article maintained that he had not yet discussed the idea directly with the President, which was accurate at the time; he has since spoken to the President, who said he is aware that he has reset the architectural hierarchy of the White House complex, but that he has no interest in touching the mansion itself. Mr. Cook noted that the story had generated significant media attention, including media personality Stephen Colbert comparing his appearance to the fictional character Willy Wonka.
Chairman Cook then summarized a message he had received from Steven Semes, a professor of architecture at the University of Notre Dame who was extensively quoted in the Post article. He said Mr. Semes recalled with pleasure his visit to Atlanta to see Mr. Cook’s work on the Millennium Arch and his participation in a book-signing at the top of the Arch, which he described as a highlight of his career as an author. Mr. Semes also expressed gratitude for the service of Mr. Cook, as well as of Vice Chairman McCrery and former Commission member Duncan Stroik, who is also an architecture professor at Notre Dame. He said that in his message, Mr. Semes wrote that he had spoken in general terms to the Post about his understanding of the Classical orders and his belief that changing the order at the White House is not appropriate. While Mr. Semes expressed gratitude that Classical architecture is now a matter of keen public interest, he also expressed concern about it being used as a political prop—something many in the field have been fighting against for decades. He concluded his letter by noting that the Classical architecture community appears to be split on these issues, as was apparent from the article, and he expressed interest in learning more about Mr. Cook’s views.
H. U.S. Mint
CFA 19/MAR/26-7, 2026 Semiquincentennial Coin Program (24-Karat Commemorative Coin – President Donald J. Trump). Designs for obverse and reverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke introduced the submission of candidate designs for a 24-karat gold commemorative coin honoring President Donald J. Trump, a new product related to the Mint’s larger Semiquincentennial coin program. He noted that the Commission had already provided recommendations at its meetings in October 2024 and January 2026 for other coins related to the program, including a dime, five quarters, a half dollar, and a one-dollar coin. He also clarified that the current case is different from the recently approved one-dollar circulating coin that also honored President Trump.
Mr. Luebke said that for the commemorative coin under review today, the Mint has submitted a single obverse and reverse alternative pair. The obverse features a portrait of the President, and the reverse consists of a bald eagle in mid-flight. He asked Megan Sullivan, acting chief of the Office of Design Management at the U.S. Mint, to present the proposal.
Ms. Sullivan said that the Secretary of the Treasury has the authority to authorize the minting and issuance of new 24-karat gold coins. She said the Mint is presenting this potential additional coin as part of the set of coins honoring America’s Semiquincentennial. She clarified that although the coin would be dual-dated like the other coins issued this year, it is not part of the Semiquincentennial program authorized by Congress, but rather an accompanying coin under the Treasury Secretary’s authority.
Ms. Sullivan said the size of the coin is still being determined, but given the requested design, planchets larger than the typical 1.287-inch diameter of a one-ounce gold coin are being considered. She noted that the Commission had already reviewed a design for a potential one-ounce gold coin, and that this would be separate from that coin if authorized. She said the Mint is also open to recommendations regarding the size, and that the largest gold planchet available is three inches in diameter. She said the proposed coin would have a denomination inscription, though the value depends on the size of the coin. She noted that the previously presented one-ounce gold coin had a denomination of $250, and that if the proposed coin approaches three inches, the denomination will be significantly higher. She added that this would be a very limited production run, with the quantity still being determined.
Ms. Sullivan then presented the single obverse and reverse designs, noting that it is her understanding that the President himself had already reviewed and approved these designs. She also noted that the proposed reverse design was included in the portfolios for the dollar coin and the one-ounce gold coin previously reviewed by the Commission; the difference would be in the inscriptions, with the denomination and a notation of .9999 fine gold likely placed in front of the eagle, where it appeared on the dollar coin.
Chairman Cook asked if President Trump had seen these specific designs; Ms. Sullivan confirmed that it was her understanding that the Secretary of the Treasury presented these and other designs to the President, and that these were his selections.
Ms. Harris said she is encouraged to hear this, as the President has reviewed many different designs and is very particular about the official images of him that are distributed. She said that if the coin is going to depict the President, she would want him to have seen, reviewed, and been in favor of the image. She commented that the proposed portrait is a very strong and tough image of him, and that she thinks it is fitting to have a current sitting President who is presiding over the country during its 250th year on a commemorative coin for that year.
Mr. Taylor suggested that the dates on the obverse be made smaller, as he finds they are running into the “Liberty” inscription near the “1776” and are creating a busy appearance.
Mr. McCrery said he does not mind the President’s hands set into fists as he rests on the desktop, especially for the right hand, but he questioned if his left hand could be doing something a little bit different. He also commented that the desktop looks like a simple horizontal bar running across the coin. Mr. Cook asked if the bar is necessary and if it could be removed; Mr. Taylor suggested adding elements to create additional perspective, which would help the desktop appear like a flat plane. Ms. Harris said there is an outer band around the actual Resolute Desk, and she therefore assumes this is what is being depicted. Mr. McCrery agreed and said he thinks this is a very good design, but he suggested adding detailing to make the plane look like a piece of furniture instead of just two strong parallel lines. Mr. Taylor suggested adding a woodgrain texture. Mr. Cook asked if that could be done with a coin, and Ms. Sullivan confirmed that adding texture is possible.
Mr. McCrery commented that for the reverse, the eagle atop the Liberty Bell is an excellent design. Mr. Taylor asked where the “.9999” inscription would go; Ms. Sullivan said this is not yet decided, as the specific planchet size is still under consideration. Mr. Taylor commented positively on the compositional layering and said he wants to ensure that the “.9999” inscription would work with this layering.
Mr. McCrery said he thinks the President likes big things, and that he generally does too, and he therefore suggests that a diameter of two inches would be a good starting point. Ms. Sullivan said that the research and development process, as well as the availability of materials, would factor into the decision on the size. Ms. Harris agreed with Mr. McCrery, commenting that larger is better, and that the largest size available would likely be the President’s preference. Mr. McCrery agreed they would sell out, so he supported selecting the largest planchet possible. Ms. Patenaude asked about the size of the [non-U.S. Mint-produced] President’s challenge coin; Ms. Harris estimated its diameter to be the rim of a drinking glass—perhaps three inches—if not larger. Mr. McCrery confirmed it is large, perhaps three and a half inches.
Upon a motion by Mr. McCrery with second by Ms. Harris, the Commission recommended approval of the presented design with the comments provided, including the strong suggestion to make the coin as large as possible.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:13 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas Luebke, FAIA
Secretary