The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:02 a.m.
Members participating:
Hon. Billie Tsien, Chair
Hon. Hazel Ruth Edwards, Vice Chair
Hon. Bruce Redman Becker
Hon. Lisa Delplace
Hon. William J. Lenihan
Hon. Justin Garrett Moore
Staff present:
Thomas E. Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Kay Fanning
Daniel Fox
Carlton Hart
Vivian Lee
Tony Simon
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Approval of the minutes of the 20 June meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the June meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Ms. Delplace with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission approved the minutes. Mr. Luebke said the document will be available to the public on the Commission’s website as the official record of the meeting.
B. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 19 September, 17 October, and 21 November 2024. He noted that no Commission meeting is scheduled in August.
C. Proposed 2025 schedule of meetings and submission deadlines for theCommission and Old Georgetown Board. Secretary Luebke presented the proposed schedule of meetings and submission deadlines for calendar year 2025. The Commission meeting dates are scheduled to be the third Thursday of each month, with no meeting in August and December; the exception would be in June, with the Commission meeting scheduled for Wednesday, 18 June 2025, to avoid the Juneteenth holiday on Thursday. Meeting dates for the Old Georgetown Board would be the first Thursday of each month, with no meeting in January and August. He noted that the schedule could be adjusted if necessary; past reasons have included a weather event, government shutdown, or lack of a quorum. Upon a motion by Mr. Lenihan with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission adopted the proposed schedule.
Chair Tsien called for a vote on the nomination, and the Commission approved Ms. Wilson’s reappointment. Mr. Luebke said that Ms. Wilson has been a strong member of the Old Georgetown Board for the past three years, and the staff looks forward to working with her for the next three years.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of the appendices had been circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting. He noted that the appendices typically include the majority of the cases submitted for the Commission’s review.
Appendix I – Government Submissions Consent Calendar: Mr. Hart said the appendix includes seven projects, and there is also one case that was previously delegated to the staff. He noted that the only change to the draft consent calendar is to add the favorable recommendation for the temporary modular classrooms at Nalle Elementary School. Upon a motion by Dr. Edwards with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the revised Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix has fifteen projects. The recommendations for two projects have been revised to be favorable based on design revisions (case numbers SL 24-143 and 24-149). Other revisions are limited to minor wording changes and the notation of dates for the receipt of supplemental materials. The recommendations for five projects are subject to further coordination with the applicants, and she requested authorization to finalize these recommendations when the outstanding issues are resolved. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the revised Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Mr. Fox reported that only minor wording changes have been made to the draft appendix, which includes 33 projects. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission approved the revised Old Georgetown Act Appendix.
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider items II.C.1 and II.C.4. Secretary Luebke said that the Commission had identified these submissions as ones that could be approved without a presentation.
C. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 18/JUL/24-3, J.O. Wilson Elementary School, 660 K Street, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept. (Previous: CFA 16/MAY/24-5)
Secretary Luebke said the submission responds to the Commission’s comments from the previous review in May 2024, when no action was taken. Chair Tsien said the updated concept design is a thoughtful response to the guidance provided by the Commission. Mr. Luebke asked if the Commission prefers to delegate further review to the staff. Chair Tsien, noting the large size of the project, said the Commission should have the opportunity to review the final design. Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Moore, the Commission approved the concept design.
4. CFA 18/JUL/24-6, Fire and Emergency Medical Services Fleet Maintenance Facility, 6 DC Village Lane, SW. Construction of four new buildings and a parking garage. Final.
Secretary Luebke said the proposal is a fleet maintenance facility for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department and the D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education. He noted that the project is submitted as a final design, although this is its first review by the Commission. Ms. Delplace commented that the project could have benefitted from an earlier review at the concept phase to consider the apparent shortcomings in addressing environmental and sustainability standards; she expressed disappointment that it is being submitted at so late a stage. She emphasized that all projects should undergo a rigorous review process. Nonetheless, she acknowledged the somewhat limited scope of this project.
Chair Tsien agreed and said the Commission feels strongly that the full process should be followed for future projects. She said that projects such as this one are not simply for utility; all projects make a mark on the earth, and they deserve careful thought with a strong awareness of being responsible for what this mark will be. She suggested approval of the submission with these observations. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the final design with a request that applicants continue working with the staff to improve the process for reviewing seemingly utilitarian projects.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.1.
B. U.S. Mint
1. CFA 18/JUL/24-1, 2026 Semiquincentennial Circulating Coin Program (Dime, Quarter, and Half Dollar) and 2026 American Eagle Platinum Proof Coin. Designs for obverse and reverse. Information presentation.
Secretary Luebke introduced the presentation for several coins to be issued in 2026 as part of the Semiquincentennial celebration of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The broader program encompasses multiple coins and medals, including all of the nation’s circulating coins. In February 2024, the Commission reviewed relatively minor design modifications for the 2026 issue of the one- and five-cent circulating coins; today’s submission introduces new overall designs for the dime, quarter, and half-dollar coins based on innovative representations of liberty and democracy, along with a related Semiquincentennial design for the obverse of the non-circulating platinum proof coin. He said the Mint is providing an information presentation, requesting preliminary comments from the Commission to assist the Mint in refining the designs. He noted that the Mint is planning to issue five versions of the circulating quarter, based on different themes; today’s presentation addresses the two themes of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and designs for the remaining three themes will be presented in the future. He asked April Stafford, Chief of the Office of Design Management at the Mint, to present the design alternatives.
Ms. Stafford said the designs in today’s information presentation are works in progress; the Commission’s comments, whether on specific designs or more broadly conceptual, will be helpful in developing a subsequent set of candidate designs. She noted that the designs were reviewed at a two-day meeting of the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) earlier this week; the preferences of the CCAC will be highlighted during the presentation.
Ms. Stafford described the authorizing legislation for this coinage program, followed by the Mint’s consultation beginning in 2022 with the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission and the America 250 Foundation. As required by the authorizing legislation, the selection process for the designs has been approved by the Secretary of the Treasury; the process includes consultation with subject-matter experts as well as the general public. The Mint has subsequently identified subject-matter experts from the Smithsonian Institution, the Library of Congress, the National Archives and Records Administration, and the National Park Service; the CCAC has also established a working group for an ongoing consultation process. The result has been to identify themes for the circulating coins that will celebrate the nation’s defining ideals, reflect our shared history, and potentially inspire civic engagement in the democratic process.
Ms. Stafford described several design approaches that will be shared among the circulating coins. Each of the coins will feature the paired years “1776” and “2026,” as previously supported by the Commission in reviewing the one- and five-cent coins. In addition, the obverse of each coin will emphasize one of the required coinage inscriptions, serving to highlight the theme for this coin.
Ms. Stafford said the obverse of the dime will emphasize the inscription “Liberty,” and the theme for the reverse will be “Liberty Over Tyranny,” intended to explore the period of the American Revolution and the lead-up to it as the spark for the nation’s aspirations and ideals that have provided the basis for the subsequent 250 years. The obverse will feature an allegorical representation of Liberty, which she said has not been a feature of circulating coins in recent decades; modern-day coins have all featured a president’s portrait on the obverse. She presented six design alternatives for the obverse and six alternatives for the reverse. Chair Tsien suggested continuing with the presentation of the other circulating coins before inviting comments from the Commission members in order to allow for a better discussion of the breadth of the program.
Ms. Stafford said the themes for the five quarters in 2026 would explore historic “inflection points” over the past 250 years as the nation’s founding principles were established, revisited, and reaffirmed in ways that moved the nation forward. Collectively, the five quarters are intended to tell the story of liberty in America, illustrating the expansion of our freedoms and exemplifying the duties of citizens as the nation faces great obstacles. The five themes are the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the abolition of slavery, and the expansion of suffrage and civil rights; the first two of these themes are included in today’s presentation. The obverses will depict Liberty or a historic figure related to the quarter’s theme; Ms. Stafford requested the Commission’s guidance on how the representations of Liberty on the various coins should be related or distinct, perhaps adapted to support the individual themes or convey evolving representations of Liberty. For the obverse of the quarters, the Mint’s artists were asked to emphasize the standard inscription “E Pluribus Unum” to affirm our collective work as a nation. For the quarter with the theme of the Declaration of Independence, she presented ten alternatives for the obverse and sixteen for the reverse. For the quarter with the theme of the U.S. Constitution, she presented nine alternatives for the obverse and fifteen for the reverse.
Ms. Stafford said the theme for the half-dollar coin is the critical role of the citizen in a participatory democracy, exploring what is required of the citizenry to continue the republic for the next 250 years. The obverse would feature Liberty and would emphasize the inscription “United States of America.” For the reverse, the artists were encouraged to consider two quotations from James Madison. She presented twelve alternatives for the obverse and ten for the reverse.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members for the circulating coins, and she asked for a summary of the CCAC’s responses at an appropriate point in the discussion. Mr. Moore expressed appreciation for the Mint’s intent to consider the series of coins in its entirety. He encouraged consideration of the Commission’s previous comments concerning diversity in representation, observing that this program provides the opportunity to address diversity across multiple coins in a unified and coherent manner instead of making random or dissonant choices. Ms. Tsien agreed that the representation of Liberty will be challenging, and the multi-coin program allows for avoiding the problem of settling on a single image. Mr. Becker expressed concern that the profile portraits of Liberty might be misunderstood as portraits of historical people, which is customary for profile portraits on coinage; Ms. Stafford confirmed that no reference is intended to any specific historical person.
Dime (Liberty Over Tyranny theme)
Ms. Stafford said the CCAC responded favorably to the design alternatives for the dime, which is the smallest of the circulating coins. Although not making a specific recommendation, the CCAC used a scoring system to identify designs that should remain in consideration, even if revision is needed, while low-scoring designs would be dropped from further consideration. The CCAC’s general guidance for the dime’s obverse was to simplify the design; to ensure that the symbolic elements of the design are appropriate as recognizably conveying the theme of Liberty; and to focus on the face of the Liberty figure. For the dime’s reverse, the CCAC supported reverse #1 and encouraged simplification of reverse #3. The CCAC also expressed interest in reverse #5 but questioned whether the banner motif was successful.
For the obverse, Mr. Moore offered support for alternative #6 as a strong depiction of Liberty, but he questioned whether its design is too detailed and intricate for the small scale of the dime. Ms. Stafford said the CCAC agreed that obverse #6 is a strong depiction; the CCAC recommended consideration of removing the bundles from Liberty’s hands and eliminating the background sun rays, which would help to simplify the small composition. She added that the Commission could recommend that one of the dime designs be used instead for a different coin or theme. Mr. Moore said the CCAC’s simplifications would improve obverse #6, and he reiterated his support for developing this design; he said its strength is that Liberty is looking forward at the viewer instead of being depicted in profile—symbolizing both the moment of establishing the nation’s independence and also conveying its importance for the future—which is a compelling and powerful pose. He said the design should be refined to ensure that the figure of Liberty is legible instead of being just a tiny figure.
For the reverse of the dime, Ms. Stafford said the CCAC generally supported the design elements of an eagle or a torch, with a suggestion for simplification; the CCAC’s highest score was for alternative #1. Mr. Becker said the torch and the eagle are preferable to the Minute Man featured in alternative #4. Ms. Delplace observed that reverse #1 seems very different stylistically from obverse #6; she suggested using a simplified design with an eagle for the reverse, such as reverse #3, which would avoid repetition of the torch motif on both sides of the coin. She agreed that the forward-facing pose of Liberty in obverse #6 would be very direct and compelling if the composition can be simplified. She supported the general design approach of using abstraction in portraying Liberty to avoid the problem of choosing a particular type of face from among the American population.
Chair Tsien expressed agreement with the consensus to support obverse #6 because of its forward-facing pose, with the comments provided on simplification as well as the avoidance of including a torch on both sides. She suggested that Liberty not be portrayed holding arrows or a torch, while the reverse could have the torch motif; she said this solution would help to coordinate the two sides and avoid problematic issues of symbolism. She also urged a better relationship of the typography on the obverse and reverse. Mr. Lenihan supported this response, which Secretary Luebke noted would be provided as the Commission’s general comments rather than a specific recommendation.
Quarter (Declaration of Independence theme)
For the obverse, Ms. Stafford said the CCAC gave its strongest support to alternative #1, which depicts a striding Liberty figure holding a torch in one hand and a scroll in the other as a representation of moving forward with the ideals of the nation’s foundational document. She noted that the portrait of Liberty is similar to the portrait of dime obverse #2, also supported by the CCAC, which depicts Liberty looking at a spark above her open hand; she added that the CCAC discouraged the inclusion of a Phrygian cap, which is more closely related to the French representation of Liberty than to modern American symbols. She said the CCAC also encouraged development of obverse #9, subject to reconsideration of Liberty’s hat and gown; the CCAC cited the strong pose of Liberty depicted in the act of writing. The CCAC also commented that the portrayal of Liberty was inappropriately “sultry” in several of the obverse alternatives and recommended that obverse #2 not be considered further.
Mr. Moore said he agrees with the CCAC’s support for obverse #1, commenting that the animated depiction of the walking Liberty figure is appropriate for the quarter’s larger size; he said the choice is especially appropriate in conjunction with the more static forward-facing pose of Liberty that the Commission is supporting for the smaller size of the dime. The quarter can also accommodate more detail in the design. He agreed that some elements such as the Phrygian cap seem dissonant with American history and iconography. He also supported the CCAC’s encouragement for further development of obverse #9. Ms. Tsien expressed agreement with these comments, and she said obverse #9 may be satisfactory with the cap removed and the face refined; she cited the depiction of the act of writing, with Liberty holding the quill pen.
For the reverse of the Declaration of Independence quarter, Ms. Stafford said the CCAC’s strongest support was for alternative #6, a very simple composition depicting the Liberty Bell being rung. The CCAC also responded favorably to the inclusion of a quotation from the Declaration of Independence in reverse #1 and #1A. The CCAC discouraged the motif of a column capital in reverse #12 and #12A, as well as several other designs that appeared too similar to the shield design on the reverse of the current one-cent coin. The depicted substitution of “Citizens” for “Subjects” in reverse #11 was discouraged as too obscure, and the eagle motif in reverse #13 was described as not having a finished appearance.
Mr. Moore said he agrees with the CCAC’s comments on the reverse alternatives; he offered a preference for reverse #6 featuring the Liberty Bell and for reverse #1 and #1A featuring Independence Hall as strong options. He also discouraged using the motifs of the shield and the Ionic column. Ms. Delplace said she supports reverse #6 if some design issues could be addressed: the inscription “Declaration of Independence” is difficult to read because it is overlapped by the bell, creating a competition between these design elements; and the inscription “Quarter Dollar” should be moved away from the inside of the bell. She emphasized the simple strength of reverse #6, especially in combination with obverse #1.
Chair Tsien summarized the consensus to support obverse #1 and potentially a revised version of obverse #9, along with reverse #6 with the recommended adjustments to the text.
Quarter (U.S. Constitution theme)
Ms. Stafford said the CCAC expressed strong interest in the depiction of Liberty at work in obverses #1 and #2, while discouraging the Statue of Liberty motif in obverse #3 as unrelated to the theme. The CCAC said obverses #5 and #6 were not successful; obverse #7 could remain under consideration if the text of the dates is moved away from Liberty’s hair. For the reverse, the CCAC supported alternatives #1 and #1A for the representation of the Constitution as a foundational element of the nation, along with alternative #2 depicting a detail from George Washington’s chair at the Constitutional Convention. While the quill pen in reverse #3 attracted some interest, this design lacked support because of the primary motif of the shield. Reverse #4 and #4A drew some support, especially the simpler inscription “We the People” for reverse #4. The CCAC responded favorably to reverse #6 for its concept of depicting a pluralistic society, and also offered support for reverse #8A; the CCAC discouraged further consideration of the remaining designs.
Mr. Lenihan expressed support for the intended motif of construction in obverse #1, but he said the composition instead conveys the sense that a column is being demolished; he suggested developing the concept in a different way. Mr. Becker said the construction concept is compelling, apparently representing the people creating their own freedom. He also offered support for reverses #5 and #5A depicting Independence Hall; Mr. Moore joined in supporting this motif. Ms. Tsien acknowledged the interest in the construction concept, but she questioned the apparently intended symbolism of Liberty constructing herself by carving her own legs out of a block of stone. Mr. Becker said the action could be interpreted as freeing oneself, which Ms. Tsien agreed is a more interesting concept than laying brick.
Ms. Tsien offered support for obverse #7, which she said interestingly depicts Liberty as a person of color; she agreed with the CCAC in questioning the placement of the inscriptions “1776” and “2026” within her hair. Mr. Moore suggested that the depiction of Liberty should be demographically diverse across the range of coins in the Semiquincentennial program; this guidance does not suggest the best choice for this particular coin but should be addressed as the Mint and its artists consider the more detailed development of the entire program. He expressed interest in further review by the Commission to consider this topic.
At this point Mr. Moore departed for the remainder of the meeting.
Chair Tsien expressed support for diversity in the representation of Liberty, citing the opportunity provided by this multi-coin program. She summarized the consensus to support obverses #1 and #7; she added that the figure from #7 could be adapted to become the Liberty figure in #1, although this may be more complicated advice than the Commission should provide to the artists. For the reverse, she summarized the Commission’s support for alternative #4 with “We the People” along with #5 and #5A depicting Independence Hall; Ms. Delplace and Mr. Lenihan agreed, citing the strength of these concepts.
Half Dollar (Participatory Democracy theme)
Ms. Stafford said the theme for this coin involves looking ahead toward the future to consider what will be required of us to safeguard our republic; the Mint encouraged its artists to consider using a modern style or intergenerational concept for the obverse. The CCAC’s strongest support was for obverse #3, depicting an adult woman carrying a flag and leading a young girl forward; the CCAC suggested developing an option with the girl holding a torch, perhaps related to a torch motif on the reverse. The CCAC also expressed some support for obverses #5; for #7 subject to refinement of the hair wreath and the depiction of the child; and for #2 if the depiction of the acorn could be improved to avoid having the appearance of emerging from a crystal ball.
Ms. Delplace expressed interest in the stylized portrait of obverse #6, which she said may be a good forward-looking design approach that avoids the continuing struggle of trying to select realistic portraits that can represent the nation. She reiterated her earlier comment that a more abstract iconography may allow a design to convey the essence of a theme without a literal depiction. She suggested developing a refined version of obverse #6 that would improve such details as the relationship of the flame with the inscription “United States of America.” She also encouraged the Mint to consider this compelling design approach for future programs, using modernity to distinguish the coins of our time from the more traditional coin designs of a century or more ago.
Chair Tsien suggested a consensus to support development of alternatives #3 and #6 for the obverse design. She said these two options would illustrate the choice between a more abstract and a more specific approach to the design; the Commission recognizes the merit of each approach in attempting to depict Liberty and people on coinage. She acknowledged that past depictions of Liberty have been specific to one type of person, and a new design direction could serve as a correction to this past tendency.
Ms. Stafford summarized the CCAC’s response to the reverse alternatives. The CCAC strongly supported reverse #8 featuring an enlarged torch, as well as reverse #6 depicting a torch being passed from one hand to another. The CCAC offered some support for the concept of reverse #3, depicting a tree sapling to symbolize how the community must nurture and preserve democracy.
Mr. Lenihan reiterated the importance of considering the full range of coins in the Semiquincentennial program; he commented that the torch is a strong symbol that should perhaps not be repeated for this coin if it is being used on another coin in the program. Ms. Tsien agreed, observing that the range of supported designs may be overemphasizing the torch motif. As an alternative, Mr. Lenihan offered support for reverse #2, which has an interesting depiction of an oak tree growing out of a book. Ms. Tsien suggested also considering reverse #3, which shows the sapling growing from the earth. She summarized the consensus to support alternatives #2 and #3 for the reverse of the half-dollar coin.
Platinum coin (Declaration of Independence theme)
Ms. Stafford said the ongoing American Eagle Platinum Proof program will launch a new three-year series in 2026 to coincide with the Semiquincentennial. This “Charters of Freedom” series will honor the nation’s founding documents: the Declaration of Independence in 2026; the U.S. Constitution in 2027; and the Bill of Rights in 2028. These non-circulating coins are sold to collectors; the common reverse design will be continuing, with only the obverse design changing each year. As part of today’s information presentation, she said the Mint is requesting general guidance from the Commission on which designs or styles are strong, allowing the Mint to work with the artists in refining the designs for the 2026 coin and in developing new designs for the second and third coins in this series.
Ms. Stafford presented ten alternatives for the obverse design. She said the CCAC discouraged consideration of alternatives #6 and #7, provided strong support for #3A and #1A, and provided limited support for #2, #5, and #4. She said the Commission’s design evaluation could include the success of the design for the theme of the Declaration of Independence in 2026, as well as the potential relationship of the design to the 2027 and 2028 coins with the theme of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Ms. Delplace said the composition of alternatives #1 and #1A is very dynamic, but #1A is problematic because the inscription “Declaration of Independence” is difficult to read against the background of the composition. Additionally, the lettering at the bottom of the design tends to get lost in alternatives #1 and #1A. She said the placement and size of the lettering would have to be reconsidered if these alternatives remain under consideration, along with general simplification of the composition.
Mr. Lenihan supported these comments on alternatives #1 and #1A. He also discouraged the design motifs referencing the new nation breaking away from being ruled by a king, instead suggesting a focus on a more positive and forward-looking message related to the Declaration of Independence; he said that alternatives #1 and #1A are relatively successful in doing this.
Chair Tsien summarized the consensus to support development of obverses #1 and #1A with clarification of the typography to improve the legibility of the inscriptions. Ms. Stafford said that revised designs would be submitted for the Commission’s formal review later in the year.
2. CFA 18/JUL/24-2, 2026 Semiquincentennial “Best of the Mint” Silver Companion Medals Program. Designs for obverse and reverse. Final.
Secretary Luebke said this program of medals is another part of the Mint’s commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence; while the previous agenda item was an information presentation seeking broad guidance, the program of medals is submitted for the Commission’s final comments.
Mr. Luebke said that under the “Best of the Mint” program, the Mint will issue five gold coins that reproduce the appearance and approximate size of significant coin designs from U.S. history. These historic coins include the 1804 silver dollar, the 1907 Saint-Gaudens high-relief Double Eagle, the 1916 Mercury dime, the 1916 Standing Liberty quarter dollar, and the 1916 Walking Liberty half dollar. The Mint will also issue a set of five companion silver medals featuring new artistic reinterpretations of these historic designs; for today’s review, the Mint has submitted the design alternatives for these companion silver medals. Each medal will be approximately 1.6 inches in diameter. He said that for reference, the presentation will show both the historic coin designs and the proposed medal designs. He introduced Megan Sullivan, Senior Design Specialist with the Office of Design Management at the U.S. Mint, to present the designs.
Ms. Sullivan said that instead of simply replicating the historic coins, the artists were asked to reinterpret them—taking inspiration from the design of the entire coin, its individual elements, or a combination of its elements, perhaps presenting a modern reinterpretation of the original coin’s historic message, or designing the medal as an homage to the broader work of the original coin’s sculptor. She presented the five historic coins and the paired obverse and reverse design alternatives for the new companion medals; for each medal, she indicated the design pairing recommended by the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC).
1804 Silver Dollar
Ms. Sullivan presented five pairings of obverse and reverse designs for the medal inspired by the 1804 silver dollar, noting the CCAC’s preference for pairing #1. Ms. Delplace asked why the head of Liberty on obverse #1 faces the opposite direction from the head on the original coin; Ms. Sullivan said this was simply the artist’s choice. Ms. Delplace said she agrees with the CCAC’s choice of pairing #1; however, she criticized the weakness of the reverse design, showing an eagle flying through clouds, and she recommended refinement of the eagle and clouds to be commensurate with the quality of the rendering for the obverse. She also advised ensuring that the fonts on each side of the medal are the same so the sides will read as a pair.
Chair Tsien summarized that the Commission agrees with the CCAC’s preference, subject to Ms. Delplace’s comments about the clarity of the imagery and coordination of the fonts. Mr. Luebke asked if the Commission is also asking the Mint to consider reversing the profile to the original orientation; Ms. Delplace said the presented version is acceptable, although she had wondered about any reason for the reversed profile.
1907 Saint-Gaudens High Relief $20 Gold Coin (Double Eagle)
Ms. Sullivan presented four pairings of obverse and reverse designs for the medal inspired by the 1907 $20 Double Eagle coin, noting the CCAC’s preference for pairing #3. Ms. Tsien said that she finds the obverse and reverse designs of pairing #1 to be quite skillful and very beautiful. Mr. Lenihan agreed, adding that both sides of pairing #1 are very artistic and less of a literal translation from the original than in pairing #3; he encouraged the Mint to continue development of pairing #1 and #3. Secretary Luebke clarified that the Mint is asking for a design recommendation for these medals, unlike the previous agenda item of an information presentation when the Commission was asked to give broad comments on multiple options. He said the Commission could choose to recommend more than one of the presented designs but does not need to support the CCAC’s preferences.
Ms. Delplace said she strongly supports pairing #1, which she described as a very compelling design although the obverse may need some refinement. Secretary Luebke suggested providing more specific guidance. Ms. Delplace said the archer’s torso on the obverse needs to be refined in order to appear commensurate with the strong depiction of the eagle on the reverse. She observed that the depiction of the eagle has a strong sense of hierarchy, evident in the rendering of the base of the eagle’s head where it connects to the body; however, on the obverse, every part of the archer’s body has an equal value. Chair Tsien summarized the Commission’s recommendation for pairing #1 with this guidance.
1916 Mercury Dime
Ms. Sullivan presented four pairings of obverse and reverse designs for the medal inspired by the 1916 dime, noting the CCAC’s preference for pairing #3. Ms. Delplace said she finds the dynamic relationship between the obverse and reverse of pairing #3 to be compelling, although she questioned the significance of Liberty’s armored torso. Chair Tsien summarized the consensus to concur with the CCAC in recommending pairing #3, with further consideration of further refinement of the torso on the obverse.
1916 Standing Liberty Quarter Dollar
Ms. Sullivan presented four pairings of obverse and reverse designs for the medal inspired by the 1916 Standing Liberty coin, noting the CCAC’s preference for pairing #2. Ms. Tsien commented that the composition of reverse #2, showing only the legs and tail of the eagle, looks somewhat strange. Ms. Delplace agreed and said that its significance is hard to understand, commenting that this reverse design needs clarification and simplification. She also suggested further consideration of the obverse, commenting that both the depiction of Liberty’s head and the olive branches she holds obscure the inscription “Liberty.” She observed that the original coin depicts Liberty in a very interesting manner, combining the frontal pose of the body and a more profile pose of the head, relating to the discussion earlier in the meeting about the significance and power of these compositional methods. She said she is not drawn to any of the other alternatives and therefore supports pairing #2 as the best of the presented designs. Secretary Luebke said the Commission could decide not to endorse any of the designs, or could support pairing #2 with refinements; Chair Tsien summarized the consensus to recommend pairing #2 with the comments provided.
1916 Liberty Walking Half Dollar
Ms. Sullivan presented five pairings of obverse and reverse designs for the medal inspired by the 1916 Liberty Walking coin, noting the CCAC’s preference for pairing #1. Ms. Delplace said she finds the set of alternatives for this medal to be the most troubling; the depictions are not as strong as for the other medals. She said she has struggled with all of the design options, and even the CCAC’s preferred pairing needs further study. She described pairing #3, #4, and #5 to be especially weak, and said she is not comfortable recommending any of the alternatives.
Chair Tsien noted that the Commission could decide not to convey a strong preference for any of the alternatives. She commented that pairing #1 is quite dynamic, although the legibility of the text is questionable; she said she could support this pairing if the legibility is improved. She described pairing #1 as a departure from conventional design, similar to the eagle with radiating lines proposed for the reverse of the Double Eagle medal. However, she said if the Commission members do not have strong feelings one way or another, the response should be that the Commission does not support a specific choice. Secretary Luebke suggested conveying the lack of strong support for any of the options, with the additional comment that if pairing #1 is pursued, then the graphic quality of the inscriptions should be improved. The Commission members supported this response.
C. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 18/JUL/24-3, J.O. Wilson Elementary School, 660 K Street, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept. (Previous: CFA 16/MAY/24-5) The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
2. CFA 18/JUL/24-4, Malcolm X Elementary School, 1500 Mississippi Avenue, SE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the concept proposal for the Malcolm X Elementary School, located at the intersection of Mississippi Avenue and 15th Street, SE. The existing building, which opened in 1966, is composed of two academic wings—a two-story volume on the east and a three-story volume on the west—centered around the main entrance node in the middle, with a fan-shaped multipurpose element to the rear. The building is elevated approximately ten feet above Mississippi Avenue at the base of a steep forested slope, surrounded by areas of lawn with some sparsely planted trees; athletic fields are to the west.
Mr. Luebke said that to meet school program projections, the design team is proposing to add a new gymnasium volume on the west, a new cafeteria at the rear, and a projecting one-story administrative volume adjacent to a new entrance, as well as expand the existing three-story academic wing in order to increase the size of the classrooms to contemporary standards. The existing one-story multipurpose room and the exterior masonry walls of the existing wings would be demolished, retaining only their structural support system. The new additions would increase the building area to 83,000 square feet. The proposed materials include a dark gray brick and metal panels. As with all D.C. Government buildings, the renovated school is required to have net-zero energy consumption; accordingly, numerous sustainable strategies and elements are proposed for the building and landscape, including geothermal wells on the west side of the site and an extensive photovoltaic array. The refinements to the main entrance include the addition of a curved walkway for barrier-free access.
Mr. Luebke asked project manager Rowan Alkaysi of the D.C. Department of General Services to begin the presentation. Ms. Alkaysi introduced the design-build team of GCS-SIGAL and CGS Architects, and she asked Joanna Schmickel of CGS Architects to present the concept design.
Ms. Schmickel said the project is intended to achieve an environmental rating of LEED Gold. The site is near the Maryland border and across the street from Oxon Run Park; it has many trees, extensive lawns, and a steep forested hill at the rear. She said the new site plan will increase connections to its surroundings to create a positive environment for the students. For the building, the proposal would keep the structural frames of the two existing academic wings while removing all exterior walls and interior partitions; the original entrance volume and the triangular one-story multipurpose structure to its rear would also be removed, and a new entrance would be constructed in the same location as the current entrance.
Ms. Schmickel indicated the footprint of the existing building. The two academic wings are angled slightly back from the entrance, located at the point where the wings meet. She said the facades express a structural rhythm through the use of ribbon windows and an irregular pattern of spandrels set at varied heights. She noted that the third floor of the west wing was an addition built a few years after the original construction; the east wing has remained the original two stories.
Ms. Schmickel said the site design includes a generously scaled new entrance plaza that would be accessible both from the main drop-off on Mississippi Avenue as well as from the 15th Street sidewalk. A variety of seating options would make this area a welcoming space; outdoor classrooms would also include fixed, terraced, and moveable seating for flexibility. A separate entrance for staff and faculty would be located at the rear of the building, near the parking lot; the main entrance and the staff entrance would lead to a common lobby. Another entrance on the northeast end of the building would provide secure entry to the Early Childhood Development area. and an entrance at the southwest would provide after-hours community access to the new gymnasium and cafeteria additions.
Ms. Schmickel said the site design’s gardens, including rain gardens, would provide opportunities for learning and create a strong connection to the abundance of surrounding natural areas, a theme that would be extended throughout the project. She illustrated precedent images of outdoor gathering spaces, noting that the site plan includes multiple circular areas to hold morning gatherings. The existing playing field on the west side of the site would remain. Several age-appropriate playgrounds would be provided; the playgrounds for younger children would be located at the rear of the building, screened from the parking lot by student gardens and other plantings. The playground for five- to twelve-year-old children would be located to the west, next to the playing field. Between the new additions at the west would be an outdoor gathering space that could be used for outdoor learning, dining, and morning gatherings.
Ms. Schmickel presented additional details of the proposed additions and the modifications to the two existing classroom. On the first floor, a volume for administration offices would be added to the academic wings, and the classrooms in these wings would be enlarged. She concluded by indicating the exterior features contributing to the net-zero energy consumption. Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels would be installed on the roofs of the two-story eastern wing and the two new additions. She said the structure of the three-story wing is not strong enough to support PV panels without reinforcement; instead, PV panels would be installed to the north, on the steep slope behind the building.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker called the proposal a clear and elegant design. He suggested considering whether some of the PV arrays could be located on the parking area to avoid placing so many of them on the landscape. Ms. Schmickel responded that placing PV panels on structures above the parking is significantly more expensive than placing them on lawn areas; nonetheless, the project team is continuing to consider this. Mr. Becker noted that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) helps to offset this cost with a thirty percent tax credit, which is even available to public entities like a school system; Ms. Schmickel said this also has been considered.
Ms. Delplace observed that many of the precedent images for the outdoor classrooms showed substantial grade changes, and she asked how this project’s outdoor spaces would accommodate barrier-free access for all students. Ms. Schmickel said the playing fields on the west side of the site are elevated above the level of the school’s first floor; both terraced seating and a sloped walk would be constructed to ascend from the outdoor dining area to the field. The design also addresses the grade change between Mississippi Avenue and the school’s first floor, a difference of approximately ten feet at the intersection; a walkway between the entrance plaza and 15th Street benefits from the more advantageous topography toward the northeast to bring people to the main entrance, and either ramps or steps would be used to ascend from Mississippi Avenue. She added that the entrance approach on Mississippi Avenue would include benches with spaces for companion seating to accommodate people using wheelchairs.
Dr. Edwards thanked the project team for its clear presentation. Noting the reference in the presentation to the harsh life experiences of some students, she commented that the proposed exterior color palette itself—particularly the use of dark-gray brick—could have a harsh appearance. She asked if consideration has been given to whether this gloomy color would have an adverse effect on students or others, and she expressed support for the use of the lighter-colored material shown on some of the building volumes. Ms. Schmickel responded that the darker material selections are based on the colors of stone; she said these natural colors would harmonize with the proposed wood, and would also provide an effective contrast to the greens and other colors in the design that are based on the site’s trees and lawns. She added that the open, two-story glazed entrances were given a bright color palette to avoid having a washed-out appearance. She also noted the strong program for public art in the D.C. Public Schools system, in cooperation with the D.C. Department of General Services; the project team is beginning to consider how art could be incorporated into the school’s design on both the interior and exterior. She said the dark-gray brick would be a good background color for the display of art, either for exterior wall-mounted pieces or site sculptures.
Chair Tsien congratulated the project team on the elegance of the proposed design. She observed that many D.C. school renovations are designed to articulate different functions with different materials. For this project, she expressed support for the use of materials to distinguish foreground from background structures so the building does not appear to be a patchwork quilt of materials. She concluded that the entire project holds together very well in both its planning and its use of materials. For the two access ramps, she suggested considering whether one of them might be worked into the landscape a little more so that one ramp appears more structured and the other more natural. In general, she suggested a consensus for the Commission to support the concept design and to look forward to the next submission, with few worries about how the design will be developed.
Mr. Becker offered a motion to approve the concept design with the comments provided. Upon a second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission adopted this action.
3. CFA 18/JUL/24-5, Harriet Tubman Elementary School, 3101 13th Street, NW. Construction of a new building and landscape. Concept.
Secretary Luebke introduced the project to replace the Harriet Tubman Elementary School in the Columbia Heights neighborhood. He said the submission narrative describes how the existing 65,000-square-foot building represented an important historical moment in the city from the 1970s; it is now proposed for demolition because it has not aged well, with significant structural and programmatic deficiencies as well as poor energy performance.
Mr. Luebke said the new school building would be approximately 107,000 square feet contained in two primary volumes—a three-story academic bar along Kenyon Street on the north and a C-shaped two-story volume along Irving Street on the south, enclosing a courtyard at the center. He noted that this reverses the configuration of the existing school, which has the taller academic wing on the south. The main entrance would remain on the west along 13th Street, which has been identified as a civic corridor that connects to other school buildings; the existing playing field would remain on the eastern side of the site along 11th Street. The design is intended to be contextual, responding to the built context of the surrounding streets. The primary materials include light- and dark-colored bricks with cast stone and metal panel accents; significant interior spaces such as the lobby, gymnasium, and cafeteria are enclosed with glazed metal systems in contrast to the more solid-looking brick.
Mr. Luebke said the site design includes an outdoor classroom within the courtyard, a “natural” play area, and a traditional structured playground; to the northeast would be a new traffic garden for the early education component. The existing playing field on the east is heavily used by the school and the community. In addition, the landscape includes historic features consisting of “ghost house” footprints from the two row houses on 13th Street whose residents had opposed selling their homes for the new school site in the 1970s; he noted that these are potentially an important interpretive feature of the property, which has such an interesting and complex history.
Mr. Luebke asked project manager Alan Austin of the D.C. Department of General Services to begin the presentation. Mr. Austin introduced architect Omar Calderon Santiago of Perkins Eastman DC and landscape architect Lauren Wheeler of Natural Resources Design to present the proposal.
Mr. Calderon Santiago said the project is designed to meet and exceed the energy efficiency mandate by providing for net-zero energy consumption, which he said contributes to the general goals of designing schools to address sustainability and resiliency in addition to improving the health and wellness of students by providing an appropriate environment. He noted that the project team has researched the history of the school, its namesake, and the Columbia Heights neighborhood. He provided several images and maps that depict details of the neighborhood; one historic map showed the location of segregated schools in the city, including one on this site.
Mr. Calderon Santiago described the existing conditions, including a three-story classroom structure along Irving Street and a one-story extension to the north that houses the library and gymnasium; these enclose a courtyard, which the school community considers to be the heart of the school. The site slopes down from 13th Street to 11th Street; the level playing areas are bordered by a series of retaining walls with colorful murals, which will remain, and the retaining walls will provide a level area for the proposed building. He indicated the parking area to the north along Kenyon Street. The existing school building was designed and built in the 1970s by the South Carolina-based firm Lyles, Bissett, Carlisle & Wolff, and it needs to be demolished because of its poor condition. The design team has studied the existing building, including its materiality, to consider establishing a relationship between the existing and proposed designs.
Mr. Calderon Santiago indicated the existing site circulation, with vehicle and service entry into the parking areas from Kenyon Street on the north and a smaller driveway on the south providing access to a service area next to the playing field. He noted that the field was recently renovated and is to remain undisturbed, which has constricted the siting options for geothermal wells to provide on-site power generation. After further study, the proposal is to place a limited number of geothermal wells elsewhere on the site and to place photovoltaic panels on the new building’s roof.
Mr. Calderon Santiago said the design team has conceptualized the school as a civic building that fits within the larger context as one of many schools along the 13th Street corridor, including Roosevelt High School, Cardozo Education Campus, Garrison Elementary School, and the more distant Benjamin Banneker High School; the 13th Street frontage is therefore intended as the civic face of the school. The design team has developed the concept of two axes for the building: an east–west civic axis from 13th Street to 11th Street, and a more residentially scaled north–south axis that addresses the relationship of the school with the neighborhood and residences. Accordingly, the school’s main entrance would face west onto 13th Street, and the northeastern part of the new building would be angled to match the angled alignment of 11th Street on the east. He said the proposal relates to architectural as well as site features of the row houses to the north and south; he indicated the terraces in front of the houses along Irving and Kenyon Streets, which he described as a typical condition in Washington, creating a landscaped podium that provides additional green space and amplifies the citywide green canopy. He described the articulation of the roof lines between buildings that results from the different patterns of housing, all within the same typology and with a strong emphasis on the vertical.
Mr. Calderon Santiago summarized the progression of the design concept, which includes moving the academic wing from the existing southern location to a northern location along Kenyon Street; the reason is to avoid having this taller volume cast shadows over some of the outdoor spaces that would be created. The gymnasium, a shorter volume, would be placed on the south along Irving Street, and the cafeteria would face east toward the major play areas.
Mr. Calderon Santiago presented a series of perspective renderings to illustrate the proposal. The three-story academic wing would be clad in a light-colored cream brick on the top two stories and a dark gray brick on the first story; it would be visually separated from the two-story wing by a slightly taller stair tower that would also be clad in a dark gray brick. The punched windows on the upper two stories would be separated by gray brick to give a more vertical appearance; the stair tower windows would be larger and vertically separated by an orange metal accent panel. The main entrance would have a canopy; the library would be located directly above, with a glass curtainwall and colorful exterior fins for solar shade. South of the main entrance would be a two-story volume containing administrative offices on the ground floor and an art room above. The entire building would be set on a low podium to address the topographic changes, and a ramp would be integrated into the steps at the front entrance to provide universal access for all students, employees, and visitors. At the south facade, the gymnasium and cafeteria wing would have the same materials as the academic wing to the north, using cream and dark gray brick with a few accent panels. A large grid of windows would be set back at the center of the facade; the roof overhang and several horizontal structures would provide shade while allowing natural light into the gymnasium. The materials palette would extend to the rest of the building; he indicated the splayed secondary entrance at the center of the east facade where the lower volume meets the academic wing. In addition to providing access to the playgrounds and playing field, this entrance would provide community access to the gymnasium.
Mr. Calderon Santiago noted that the D.C. Public Schools system has a robust program for artwork, and the design team is exploring how to integrate art into the project. One possibility is to use the accent metal panels, which are depicted in the renderings in different colors, as opportunities for public art, possibly by interpreting Harriet Tubman’s life and achievements.
Ms. Wheeler presented the landscape design in greater detail. At the front entrance along 13th Street, the intent is to create a welcoming entry sequence: a ramp would be integrated into the front steps for universal access; the canopy over the entrance would provide shelter from the elements; and an existing red oak tree would be retained to provide shade. The building’s central courtyard, described as the “heart of the school,” would be a flexible space with raised planter beds and an outdoor classroom, along with the potential for outdoor dining. Additional planted areas at the periphery of the courtyard would contribute to the site’s stormwater management. She said the landscape along Irving Street is not being changed, helping to preserve the significant trees on the south side of the campus. The playground and traffic garden areas would include a reading circle and an emphasis on natural play to appropriately accommodate 3- to 5-year-olds. To the north, the playground for 5- to 12-year-olds would have more active play equipment along with natural play space incorporating boulders and fallen logs. The existing playing field to the east would remain; the proposal includes additional plantings and seating.
Ms. Wheeler then described the bioretention cells that would be introduced for stormwater management: south of the traffic garden, within the courtyard, next to the front entrance, north of the building adjacent to the parking area, and in the northwest corner along 13th Street. These would incorporate pollinator gardens and native planting ecosystems. The bioretention area on the north would include a ramp to provide barrier-free access between the play areas and the Kenyon Street sidewalk.
Chair Tsien thanked the design team for its thorough presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker expressed support for the proposed design’s logic and the color palette. He asked about the cultural significance of the existing school building and the ghost houses, requesting additional information about the community’s response to the proposed demolition of the school. Mr. Calderon Santiago responded that the design team’s first inclination was to retain the building, but this was found to present too many obstacles because of the building’s deficiencies and the need to accommodate the program. A primary issue is that the existing classrooms are too small and would need to be expanded, but not enough space is available to accommodate the expansion. Ms. Wheeler said the issue of the ghost houses did not arise in researching the site history; the term appears to refer to some raised concrete boxes or platforms. Secretary Luebke clarified that the ghost house features are not actual foundation walls of old houses; they are later representations to commemorate the houses that were removed to accommodate the school’s construction in the 1970s. Chair Tsien noted the interest of the Commission members in this issue; she said the more general concern is that designers should give more recognition to the broader cultural history of a neighborhood, beyond the built forms. She encouraged the project team to use this knowledge about the site history to help inform the design.
Ms. Delplace offered several comments about the landscape, expressing support for the intent to retain existing trees on the site. She urged further consideration of the design significance of D.C.’s Parking Act of 1870, which established the landscape character for the frontage of yards across the city in an effort to establish green streets. She said the Parking Act helped to create a certain spatial rhythm of architecture, trees, and other plantings along streets that is fundamental to their character and, more broadly, to that of the city’s neighborhoods. She suggested that the design team look at those precedents to introduce the same type of character along the school site that has been created along the residential sides of Kenyon and Irving Streets.
Mr. Lenihan commented that the proposal is a very thoughtful design, but the courtyard—which is a very important component of the project—will need further study to create a wonderful new space.
Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Dr. Edwards, the Commission approved the concept design with the comments provided—to integrate more of the site history into the design, incorporate more trees into the site, and improve the courtyard design—and delegated review of the final design to the Commission staff.
4. CFA 18/JUL/24-6, Fire and Emergency Management Services Fleet Maintenance Facility, 6 DC Village Lane, SW. Construction of four new buildings and a parking garage. Final. The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:19 p.m.
Signed,
Thomas E. Luebke, FAIA
Secretary